Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:57:42 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     David Kozub <zub@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>,
        Scott Bauer <sbauer@plzdonthack.me>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@studium.uni-erlangen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] block: sed-opal: support shadow MBR done flag
 and write
Message-ID: <20190205065742.GB1868@infradead.org>
References: <1549054223-12220-1-git-send-email-zub@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz>
 <20190204150415.GO31132@infradead.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902042344420.10661@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902042344420.10661@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:06:54AM +0100, David Kozub wrote:
> This will unfortunately trigger some changes (conflict resolving - e.g. if I
> move the last two patches in the current series forward, in front of the
> patches with new functionality). What is the proper procedure w.r.t.
> Reviewed-by tags which were already given? Common sense would make me keep
> them for trivial changes and remove them if the patch should be re-reviewed.
> Is that correct?

I don't think there is a general rule.  As long as the change is trivial
I keep them personally, otherwise I drop them.

E.g. if you just remove a few hunk because of new code that isn't
present now I'd keep them, if there are more complex changes to the code
flow I would consider dropping them.

> FWIW I also hacked together a tool to cover my usecase:
> https://gitlab.com/zub2/opalctl
> 
> The selling point is that it can handle passwords the same way that sedutil
> (https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil) does.

That actually is pretty nice, as it allows people to migrate over
(not that I've heard of a whole lot of usage of sedutil, but being
compatible to some extent is always nice)