From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:00:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20170123160009.GB517@lst.de> References: <20170121175212.GA28180@lst.de> <20170122162910.GA5267@lst.de> <20170122183046.GA7359@lst.de> <20170122184439.GA7603@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Tony Luck , Jan Kara , Toshi Kani , Mike Snitzer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , Jeff Moyer , Jens Axboe , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Ingo Molnar , Al Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Ross Zwisler List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:10:04PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > How about we solve the copy_from_user() abuse first before we hijack > this thread for some future feature that afaics has no patches posted > yet. Solving copy_from_user abuse first sounds perfectly fine to me. But please do so without abusing the block layer for persistent memory access. Given that we don't have use cases for different pmem access methods in a single OS image yet let's avoid introducing new ops for now and just remove the copy_from_user abuse. In the longer run I like your dax_operations, but they need to be separate from the block layer. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4361381EE3 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:00:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:00:09 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm Message-ID: <20170123160009.GB517@lst.de> References: <20170121175212.GA28180@lst.de> <20170122162910.GA5267@lst.de> <20170122183046.GA7359@lst.de> <20170122184439.GA7603@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Dan Williams Cc: "x86@kernel.org" , Tony Luck , Jan Kara , Mike Snitzer , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Matthew Wilcox , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Al Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig List-ID: On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:10:04PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > How about we solve the copy_from_user() abuse first before we hijack > this thread for some future feature that afaics has no patches posted > yet. Solving copy_from_user abuse first sounds perfectly fine to me. But please do so without abusing the block layer for persistent memory access. Given that we don't have use cases for different pmem access methods in a single OS image yet let's avoid introducing new ops for now and just remove the copy_from_user abuse. In the longer run I like your dax_operations, but they need to be separate from the block layer. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751462AbdAWQAN (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:00:13 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:43208 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751414AbdAWQAM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:00:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:00:09 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dan Williams Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Tony Luck , Jan Kara , Toshi Kani , Mike Snitzer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , Jeff Moyer , Jens Axboe , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Ingo Molnar , Al Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm Message-ID: <20170123160009.GB517@lst.de> References: <20170121175212.GA28180@lst.de> <20170122162910.GA5267@lst.de> <20170122183046.GA7359@lst.de> <20170122184439.GA7603@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:10:04PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > How about we solve the copy_from_user() abuse first before we hijack > this thread for some future feature that afaics has no patches posted > yet. Solving copy_from_user abuse first sounds perfectly fine to me. But please do so without abusing the block layer for persistent memory access. Given that we don't have use cases for different pmem access methods in a single OS image yet let's avoid introducing new ops for now and just remove the copy_from_user abuse. In the longer run I like your dax_operations, but they need to be separate from the block layer.