Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Kconfig is tricky. We face a build error with CONFIG_BLOCK=n with > UBIFS_FS_ENCRYPTION enabled. > UBIFS file encryption does "select FS_ENCRYPTION" just like ext4 and f2fs. > This will enable ENCRYPTION even when no block

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Kconfig is tricky. We face a build error with CONFIG_BLOCK=n with > UBIFS_FS_ENCRYPTION enabled. > UBIFS file encryption does "select FS_ENCRYPTION" just like ext4 and f2fs. > This will enable ENCRYPTION even when no block

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Ted, Am 07.01.2017 um 20:24 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:10:43PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> I thought you're supposed to be able to build the kernel no matter how it's >> configured. If this patch is really too large for 4.10 then perhaps we >> should >> make

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Ted, Am 07.01.2017 um 20:24 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:10:43PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> I thought you're supposed to be able to build the kernel no matter how it's >> configured. If this patch is really too large for 4.10 then perhaps we >> should >> make

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:10:43PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I thought you're supposed to be able to build the kernel no matter how it's > configured. If this patch is really too large for 4.10 then perhaps we should > make FS_ENCRYPTION select CONFIG_BLOCK instead? We already have

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:10:43PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I thought you're supposed to be able to build the kernel no matter how it's > configured. If this patch is really too large for 4.10 then perhaps we should > make FS_ENCRYPTION select CONFIG_BLOCK instead? We already have

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Am 04.01.2017 um 21:10 schrieb Eric Biggers: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:28:36AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Ted, >>> >>> Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Am 04.01.2017 um 21:10 schrieb Eric Biggers: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:28:36AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Ted, >>> >>> Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:28:36AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Ted, > > > > Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > >> That way we can get

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:28:36AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Ted, > > > > Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > >> That way we can get

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Ted, > > Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > >> > >> Reported-by: Arnd

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Ted, > > Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > >> > >> Reported-by: Arnd

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Ted, Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. >> >> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann >> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap >>

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Ted, Am 01.01.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. >> >> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann >> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap >> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig >>

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig >

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig > Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto") >

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Hi, > On 19.12.2016, at 12:25, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Hi, > On 19.12.2016, at 12:25, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig > Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto") >

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

Looks fine, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig >

Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig > Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto") >

[PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann Reported-by: Randy Dunlap Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto") Signed-off-by: Richard

[PATCH v2] fscrypt: Factor out bio specific functions

That way we can get rid of the direct dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK. Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann Reported-by: Randy Dunlap Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig Fixes: d475a507457b ("ubifs: Add skeleton for fscrypto") Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger --- Changes since v1: - Moved