Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:22f:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 15csp1743269pxk; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgxih5nDLgx2uGLc0Rwpzj3rnoPFf/K8Ef5+VgQvOnB57KoryrgKWGbkitOT6hUbo5UmGh X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a4b:: with SMTP id x11mr1659158ejf.83.1598968256435; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1598968256; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=anyB5zeuf/tit/IywDCFRdRBHzrufVJY1s6vRc8pJrlqJihqa7h8m6qsdwL0nD8kN7 yW2FxTygWa4OoGO3L7rz8q+UYjy9ovkdwJSGtPCKbtDGP0AfeWJdEys4ZXUbKxc8WUS2 ghe0gMucVL8VdioTk8y5wTk9SFZ63pLDiyOBqhRzmQY5+YRW7/omwgZpfOT4h/Ahdf8L YC2f7Qu0H5L2eRzqsjKAOURFaPXZYLiAKRkWhLGqzIkpRqdiUUugycBr+M/S3ZprHI2I jnQNsAxj+qJ2uDcR5z6JvjGv7abJ8HoWODxUqA8Vx7+eVuepHWGIIUTvWsZHpXGU/aU7 E7FQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=umHfvOL0J1ZkxkzjujOKSRjD07bmjbQWixfcQCpw0uI=; b=R2osjvAbKMIYEAvxdZusaf4Gdlse9xcTd87XPspmmtpfcCZKnhWA6jss0Hmrn04Lcz nv3j1u2SlLRjtZD09gEG0ry8D28D3nLp20mRzn0tE/MeLMODJEJvlvMkhejnBoHENEfM NqZulPA95fXumntN5SDbzxGd8z1rBBcQdKGi8CrAfeQaCyr6W0nX+wRKf9PPXb1HgKaj QteRDnY0wKwWs2zL+DRgWijrfyN5rTAm8QfErex3yI8hODd+qEKAOBhWO3HdIEsuTEga 7CGe2bQPRPsWlU+llSU2P4zQmy29ANUa1H3gHJJWK4SDg59rmlxIo90A6kKn02K8hUPS KWLQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@veeam.com header.s=mx2 header.b=UgcD+Wup; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=veeam.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d24si565484edv.518.2020.09.01.06.50.31; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@veeam.com header.s=mx2 header.b=UgcD+Wup; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=veeam.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728290AbgIANsz (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:48:55 -0400 Received: from mx2.veeam.com ([12.182.39.6]:40438 "EHLO mx2.veeam.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727906AbgIANbI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:31:08 -0400 Received: from mail.veeam.com (prgmbx01.amust.local [172.24.0.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.veeam.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A91341364; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:30:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=veeam.com; s=mx2; t=1598967018; bh=umHfvOL0J1ZkxkzjujOKSRjD07bmjbQWixfcQCpw0uI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UgcD+WupLi7EW3I9d/5JdtcO3zzYeAgEio3FVeuj2Xsy58gMNQRGq2C/0g1Fl7sz6 yV0tX8ohZs6DqYVLjwth3GJ9i6RTpYyZkcy5FtyBPcHRo5TRXrzCoKyFWWsQRFv0hU 9ZHXkSqf0HzwAOVHLLyEC+QkxsD2lX5SLAArkE58= Received: from veeam.com (172.24.14.5) by prgmbx01.amust.local (172.24.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.595.3; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:30:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 16:29:57 +0300 From: Sergei Shtepa To: Jens Axboe CC: "masahiroy@kernel.org" , "michal.lkml@markovi.net" , "koct9i@gmail.com" , "jack@suse.cz" , "damien.lemoal@wdc.com" , "ming.lei@redhat.com" , "steve@sk2.org" , "linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] block io layer filters api Message-ID: <20200901132957.GA18251@veeam.com> References: <1598555619-14792-1-git-send-email-sergei.shtepa@veeam.com> <7a517822-6be2-7d0d-fae3-31472c85f543@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7a517822-6be2-7d0d-fae3-31472c85f543@kernel.dk> X-Originating-IP: [172.24.14.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: prgmbx02.amust.local (172.24.0.172) To prgmbx01.amust.local (172.24.0.171) X-EsetResult: clean, is OK X-EsetId: 37303A29C604D26B63716B X-Veeam-MMEX: True X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx2.veeam.com [172.18.16.6]); Tue, 01 Sep 2020 09:30:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Veeam-MailScanner-Information: Please contact email@veeam.com if you have any problems X-Spam-Status: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The 08/28/2020 16:54, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/27/20 1:13 PM, Sergei Shtepa wrote: > > Hello everyone! Requesting for your comments and suggestions. > > > > We propose new kernel API that should be beneficial for out-of-tree > > kernel modules of multiple backup vendors: block layer filter API. > > That's just a non-starter, I'm afraid. We generally don't carry > infrastructure in the kernel for out-of-tree modules, that includes > even exports of existing code. > > If there's a strong use case *in* the kernel, then such functionality > could be entertained. > > -- > Jens Axboe > To be honest, we've always dreamed to include our out-of-tree module into the kernel itself - so if you're open to that, that is great news indeed! We've spent some time before responding to estimate how long it will take us to update the current source code to meet coding requirements. It looks like we will need 2-4 months of development and QC, and possibly much more to work on your feedback thereafter. This is much work, but we are fully committed to this if you are willing to include this module into the kernel. However, the same time requirement also presents a big immediate problem - as until this is done, over a hundred thousands of Linux users will not be able to protect their servers running the impacted kernels (our backup agent is free). They will be forced to stop using the new version of the kernel (or take a risk of data loss). Given that, is there any chance that you accept the proposed patch now, to restore the ability to protect their Linux machines - and buy us time to deliver the compliant module for inclusion into the kernel? -- Sergei Shtepa Veeam Software developer.