On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:54:00AM +0000, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> It's modified by additions in the next patch in the series and I
> thought I should introduce the function with the final type from the
> get go - is that alright?
It is probably ok, let me review the next patch in more detail.
> > > __blk_queue_split(q, &bio, &nr_segs);
> > > @@ -2011,6 +2015,15 @@ static blk_qc_t blk_mq_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > >
> > > blk_mq_bio_to_request(rq, bio, nr_segs);
> > >
> > > + ret = blk_crypto_init_request(rq);
> > > + if (ret != BLK_STS_OK) {
> > > + bio->bi_status = ret;
> > > + bio_endio(bio);
> > > + blk_mq_free_request(rq);
> > > + return BLK_QC_T_NONE;
> > > + }
> >
> > Didn't Eric have a comment last round that we shoul dtry this before
> > attaching the bio to simplify error handling?
> >
> In the previous round, I believe Eric commented that I should call
> blk_crypto_init_request after bio_to_request so that we can do away
> with some of the arguments to blk_crypto_init_request and also a
> boilerplate function used only while calling blk_crypto_init_request.
> I realize you wrote "And we can fail just the request on an error, so
> yes this doesn't seem too bad." in response to this particular
> comment of Eric's, and it seems I might not actually have understood
> what that meant - did you have something in mind different from what I'm
> doing here?
No, this looks ok, sorry for the noise.
