From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551DEC46460 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FD420675 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 16:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fjfi.cvut.cz header.i=@fjfi.cvut.cz header.b="im1U7FIJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726491AbfEBQD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 12:03:29 -0400 Received: from mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz ([147.32.9.131]:56862 "EHLO mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726197AbfEBQD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 12:03:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BA9A028C; Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fjfi.cvut.cz; s=20151024; t=1556813006; i=@fjfi.cvut.cz; bh=2Ze/HvAXhuoo8WdLZh8zGvvHYRFvuAlI1idx06EoKYs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=im1U7FIJLWrHdHCEcXz6YTIex6F4oGahKzL0yTY/Q4FEsBI2hg8JWui9AX3HjQjIp yMm1ZI8ft3U01gwWNKyBJI1GpTFO2NI+h54UU8AFDZzYFDq9Bm1vopDNoZVZk4JlGo Axo2NJmLnx3/Pk437lKY/iHiQWk2JMmxMBo4WjSA= X-CTU-FNSPE-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fjfi.cvut.cz Received: from mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10022) with ESMTP id z1d07Ym63AVr; Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from linux.fjfi.cvut.cz (linux.fjfi.cvut.cz [147.32.5.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73CFEA0264; Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:23 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailgw2.fjfi.cvut.cz 73CFEA0264 Received: by linux.fjfi.cvut.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4123A6004D; Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by linux.fjfi.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A15D6002A; Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 18:03:23 +0200 (CEST) From: David Kozub To: Scott Bauer cc: Jens Axboe , Jonathan Derrick , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Rabenstein Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: sed-opal: add support for shadow MBR done flag and write In-Reply-To: <20190502123036.GA4657@hacktheplanet> Message-ID: References: <1556666459-17948-1-git-send-email-zub@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz> <20190502123036.GA4657@hacktheplanet> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Bauer wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 01:20:56AM +0200, David Kozub wrote: >> >> Jonas Rabenstein (3): >> block: sed-opal: add ioctl for done-mark of shadow mbr >> block: sed-opal: ioctl for writing to shadow mbr >> block: sed-opal: check size of shadow mbr >> >> block/opal_proto.h | 16 ++++ >> block/sed-opal.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> include/linux/sed-opal.h | 2 + >> include/uapi/linux/sed-opal.h | 20 +++++ >> 4 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > > I'll review this over the weekend. Is this essentially the same thing > we reviewed a month or two ago or are there little differences due to > it be split across two different series? The first patch (block: sed-opal: add ioctl for done-mark of shadow mbr) is a bit different because a new struct and enum were introduced. The rest is pretty much the same. That's also why I kept the reviewd-by tags. Best regards, David