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:   Fri, 15 May 2020 07:42:24 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.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 v13 00/12] Inline Encryption Support
Message-ID: <20200515144224.GA12040@infradead.org>
References: <20200514003727.69001-1-satyat@google.com>
 <20200514051053.GA14829@sol.localdomain>
 <8fa1aafe-1725-e586-ede3-a3273e674470@kernel.dk>
 <20200515074127.GA13926@infradead.org>
 <20200515122540.GA143740@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200515122540.GA143740@google.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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..