On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:14:32PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/21/21 5:50 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > + Jens, Martin, James > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 09:23, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This patchset adds a resource-managed variant of blk_ksm_init() so that > >> drivers don't have to worry about calling blk_ksm_destroy(). > >> > >> This was suggested during review of my patchset which adds eMMC inline > >> encryption support > >> (https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-mmc/20210104184542.4616-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u). > >> That patchset proposes a second caller of blk_ksm_init(). But it can > >> instead use the resource-managed variant, as can the UFS driver. > >> > >> My preference is that patch #1 be taken through the MMC tree together > >> with my MMC patchset, so that we don't have to wait an extra cycle for > >> the MMC changes. Patch #2 can then go in later. > > > > Sure, I can pick patch #1 through my mmc tree, but need an ack from > > Jens to do it. Or whatever he prefers. > > Or we can take it through the block tree, usually the easiest as > it's the most likely source of potential conflicts. And that's true > for both of them, as long as the SCSI side signs off on patch 2/2. > As I mentioned, the issue is that my patchset to add eMMC inline encryption support (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210121090140.326380-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx) depends on devm_blk_ksm_init(), as it was requested during review. So if devm_blk_ksm_init() goes in through the block tree, Ulf won't be able to take the eMMC patchset for 5.12. - Eric
