[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200515144224.GA12040@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 07:42:24 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/12] Inline Encryption Support
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:25:40PM +0000, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> One of the nice things about the current design is that regardless of what
> request queue an FS sends an encrypted bio to, blk-crypto will be able to handle
> the encryption (whether by using hardware inline encryption, or using the
> blk-crypto-fallback). The FS itself does not need to worry about what the
> request queue is.
True. Which just makes me despise that design with the pointless
fallback even more..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists