lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: dm: enable opt-out of device-mapper dax support
Date
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 13:59 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 01 2017 at 2:12pm -0400,
> > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > I'm questioning the need to have yet another Kbuild CONFIG option. If
> > > the user has enabled CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM and CONFIG_FS_DAX (DAX already
> > > gets selected by CONFIG_FS_DAX) then shouldn't the DM capabilities just
> > > be enabled?
> > >
> > > Guess I'm just skeptical of: why do we want to move to a model where
> > > users need to opt-in to DM support for DAX?
> > >
> > > I also _really_ don't like each target's DAX support being colocated in
> > > drivers/md/dm-dax.c
> > >
> > > This all looks and feels like a serious step backwards.
> >
> > Ok, you want ifdef'd sections of DAX code in each target and make
> > DM_DAX a silent option that gets enabled with BLK_DEV_PMEM, anything
> > else?
>
> Actually, no, I was thrown off by Bart's suggestion to move code
> around. I can handle this all by deleting "select DAX" and adding more
> stubbed out dax helpers.

Hello Mike and Dan,

How about one *-dax.c file per *.c dm file that has to be modified to add DAX support?
I think that approach would avoid collocation of code for different targets in a
single dm-dax.c file and would also avoid that #ifdef CONFIG_DAX statements have to
be added. This approach is orthogonal to removal of CONFIG_DM_DAX.

Thanks,

Bart.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 23:06    [W:0.047 / U:13.888 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site