Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:21:37 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 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 v10 03/12] block: Inline encryption support for blk-mq
Message-ID: <20200428052137.GA18572@infradead.org>
References: <20200408035654.247908-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20200408035654.247908-4-satyat@google.com>
 <20200422093502.GB12290@infradead.org>
 <20200428025400.GB52406@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200428025400.GB52406@google.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:54:00AM +0000, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> It's modified by additions in the next patch in the series and I
> thought I should introduce the function with the final type from the
> get go - is that alright?

It is probably ok, let me review the next patch in more detail.

> > >  	__blk_queue_split(q, &bio, &nr_segs);
> > > @@ -2011,6 +2015,15 @@ static blk_qc_t blk_mq_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > >  
> > >  	blk_mq_bio_to_request(rq, bio, nr_segs);
> > >  
> > > +	ret = blk_crypto_init_request(rq);
> > > +	if (ret != BLK_STS_OK) {
> > > +		bio->bi_status = ret;
> > > +		bio_endio(bio);
> > > +		blk_mq_free_request(rq);
> > > +		return BLK_QC_T_NONE;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Didn't Eric have a comment last round that we shoul dtry this before
> > attaching the bio to simplify error handling?
> > 
> In the previous round, I believe Eric commented that I should call
> blk_crypto_init_request after bio_to_request so that we can do away
> with some of the arguments to blk_crypto_init_request and also a
> boilerplate function used only while calling blk_crypto_init_request.
> I realize you wrote "And we can fail just the request on an error, so
> yes this doesn't seem too bad." in response to this particular
> comment of Eric's, and it seems I might not actually have understood
> what that meant - did you have something in mind different from what I'm
> doing here?

No, this looks ok, sorry for the noise.