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.