On 4/29/2026 11:58 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:25:04AM -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 08:34:00PM +0800, Linlin Zhang wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>>
>>> Adding a bool need_acct parameter to __blk_crypto_submit_bio() would require
>>> updating all existing callers, which feels rather intrusive given that the
>>> accounting issue only affects the blk‑crypto fallback write slow‑path. I’m a
>>> bit concerned that this would broaden the scope of the change more than
>>> necessary for the problem at hand.
>>
>> I get your concern, and I'd like a second opinion on how much we should
>> care about this, but it doesn't look like there are many other callers
>> that would be effected here. The only existing caller of
>> __blk_crypto_submit_bio() is blk_crypto_submit_bio(), which would just
>> call it with "need_acct=true". Looking at the code path below
>> __blk_crypto_submit_bio() that would need to change for submitting the
>> bios:
>>
>> __blk_crypto_submit_bio() is the only caller of
>> blk_crypto_fallback_bio_prep()
>>
>> blk_crypto_fallback_bio_prep() is the only caller of
>> blk_crypto_fallback_encrypt_bio().
>>
>> blk_crypto_fallback_encrypt_bio() is the only caller of
>> __blk_crypto_fallback_encrypt_bio(), which is the function that would
>> need to choose between submit_bio() and submit_bio_noacct().
>>
>> Doing this would change the crypto API (by necessity, since we're adding
>> a new argument to __blk_crypto_submit_bio() for stacking devices to
>> use), and it is adds a extra argument to a number of functions, just to
>> handle this corner case. But it is still a relatively contained change.
>
> Having discussed this a bit, I'm fine with leaving this as a TODO for
> now. If anyone wants to chime in with an opinion on how acceptable it
> would be to add a new bio flag for skipping accounting, that would be
> great.
Thanks, Ben.
I’d appreciate it if someone else could chime in on these two approaches.
>
> -Ben
>
