From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] ext4: Add ext4_get_block_dax() Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:19:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20150805151904.GD13681@linux.intel.com> References: <1438718285-21168-1-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <1438718285-21168-5-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <20150805020357.GA3902@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150805020357.GA3902@dastard> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 12:03:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > From: Matthew Wilcox > > > > DAX wants different semantics from any currently-existing ext4 > > get_block callback. Unlike ext4_get_block_write(), it needs to honour > > the 'create' flag, and unlike ext4_get_block(), it needs to be able > > to return unwritten extents. So introduce a new ext4_get_block_dax() > > which has those semantics. We could also change ext4_get_block_write() > > to honour the 'create' flag, but that might have consequences on other > > users that I do not currently understand. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox > > Doesn't this make the first patch in the series redundant? As I explained in the cover letter, patch 1 already went to Ted. It might be on its way in, and it might not. Rather than sending a patch that applies to current mainline and forcing someone to fix up a conflict later, better to resend the patch as part of this series, and our tools will do the right thing no matter which order patches go into Linus' tree. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6A16B0038 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so6601946pab.0 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 08:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com. [134.134.136.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q6si5769100pdm.185.2015.08.05.08.19.06 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 08:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:19:04 -0400 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] ext4: Add ext4_get_block_dax() Message-ID: <20150805151904.GD13681@linux.intel.com> References: <1438718285-21168-1-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <1438718285-21168-5-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <20150805020357.GA3902@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150805020357.GA3902@dastard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Chinner Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 12:03:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > From: Matthew Wilcox > > > > DAX wants different semantics from any currently-existing ext4 > > get_block callback. Unlike ext4_get_block_write(), it needs to honour > > the 'create' flag, and unlike ext4_get_block(), it needs to be able > > to return unwritten extents. So introduce a new ext4_get_block_dax() > > which has those semantics. We could also change ext4_get_block_write() > > to honour the 'create' flag, but that might have consequences on other > > users that I do not currently understand. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox > > Doesn't this make the first patch in the series redundant? As I explained in the cover letter, patch 1 already went to Ted. It might be on its way in, and it might not. Rather than sending a patch that applies to current mainline and forcing someone to fix up a conflict later, better to resend the patch as part of this series, and our tools will do the right thing no matter which order patches go into Linus' tree. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org