On 16.12.2016 23:14, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:48:19PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> On 16.12.2016 16:37, David Gstir wrote: >>>> @@ -349,33 +347,10 @@ int fscrypt_zeroout_range(const struct inode *inode, pgoff_t lblk, >>>> err = do_page_crypto(inode, FS_ENCRYPT, lblk, >>>> ZERO_PAGE(0), ciphertext_page, >>>> PAGE_SIZE, 0, GFP_NOFS); >>>> + err = fscrypt_bio_submit_page(inode, pblk, ciphertext_page); >>> >>> Any specific reason why you didn't just move the whole fscrypt_zeroout_range() to bio.c? >> >> The function depends other internal functions of crypto.c which I didn't want to >> export. >> At the end of the day it's a matter of taste. I found it less ugly to keep >> fscrypt_zeroout_range() in crypto.c than exposing internal stuff. >> > > Hmm, it still seems weird to define fscrypt_zeroout_range() when it can't > actually be used. It looks like the problem is specifically the use of > alloc_bounce_page() and do_page_crypto(). Would it be that bad to make those > available in fscrypt_internal.h (not exported to filesystems)? We can also hide it under a #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK. Exporting internal functions is also an option. As I said, I found the current variant the least ugly one. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
