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. -Ben
