Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:35:39 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@qti.qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] block: blk-crypto-fallback for Inline Encryption
Message-ID: <20200221173539.GA6525@infradead.org>
References: <20200221115050.238976-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20200221115050.238976-4-satyat@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200221115050.238976-4-satyat@google.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

High-level question:  Does the whole keyslot manager concept even make
sense for the fallback?  With the work-queue we have item that exectutes
at a time per cpu.  So just allocatea per-cpu crypto_skcipher for
each encryption mode and there should never be a slot limitation.  Or
do I miss something?