lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices
From
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:25 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:41 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at 6:22pm -0400,
>> > > Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at 5:28pm -0400,
>> > > > Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com> wrote:
>> > :
>> > > > Looks good, I folded it in and tested it to work. Pushed to my 'wip'
>> > > > branch.
>> > > >
>> > > > No longer seeing any corruption in my test that was using partitions
>> > > > to span pmem devices with a dm-linear device.
>> > > >
>> > > > Jens, any chance you'd be open to picking up the first 2 patches in
>> > > > this series? Or would you like to see them folded or something
>> > > > different?
>> > >
>> > > I'm now wondering if we'd be better off setting a new QUEUE_FLAG_DAX
>> > > rather than establish GENHD_FL_DAX on the genhd?
>> > >
>> > > It'd be quite a bit easier to allow upper layers (e.g. XFS and ext4) to
>> > > check for a queue flag.
>> >
>> > I think GENHD_FL_DAX is more appropriate since DAX does not use a request
>> > queue, except for protecting the underlining device being disabled while
>> > direct_access() is called (b2e0d1625e19).
>> >
>> > About protecting direct_access, this patch assumes that the underlining
>> > device cannot be disabled until dtr() is called. Is this correct? If
>> > not, I will need to call dax_map_atomic().
>>
>> Kernel internal usages of dax should be using dax_map_atomic() to
>> safely resolve device removal races.
>
> Will do. In such case, shall I move dax_[un]map_atomic() to block_dev.c and
> rename them to bdev_dax_[un]map_atomic()?

Sounds good to me. I know Jeff and Christoph don't like the current
calling convention of passing in a structure. Just note that they
might ask you to change it back to a list of parameters if it moves to
bdev_dax_map_atomic().

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-21 19:21    [W:0.052 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site