From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:09:49 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: "Verma, Vishal L" Cc: "jack@suse.cz" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "Williams, Dan J" , "axboe@fb.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "Wilcox, Matthew R" , "david@fromorbit.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors Message-ID: <20160404120949.GH8372@quack.suse.cz> References: <1458861450-17705-1-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@intel.com> <1458861450-17705-5-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@intel.com> <1458939796.5501.8.camel@intel.com> <1459195288.15523.3.camel@intel.com> <1459277829.6412.3.camel@intel.com> <20160330074926.GC12776@quack.suse.cz> <1459538265.23200.8.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1459538265.23200.8.camel@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri 01-04-16 19:17:52, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 09:49 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 29-03-16 18:57:16, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 16:34 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > > <> > > > > > > > > > > > Seems kind of sad to fail the fault due to a bad block when we > > > > were > > > > going to zero it anyway, right?��I'm not seeing a compelling > > > > reason to > > > > keep any zeroing in fs/dax.c. > > > Agreed - but how do we do this? clear_pmem needs to be able to clear > > > an > > > arbitrary number of bytes, but to go through the driver, we'd need > > > to > > > send down a bio? If only the driver had an rw_bytes like interface > > > that > > > could be used by anyone... :) > > Actually, my patches for page fault locking remove zeroing from > > dax_insert_mapping() and __dax_pmd_fault() - the zeroing now happens > > from > > the filesystem only and the zeroing in those two functions is just a > > dead > > code... > > That should make things easier! Do you have a tree I could merge in to > get this? (WIP is ok as we know that my series will depend on yours..) > or, if you can distill out that patch on a 4.6-rc1 base, I could carry > it in my series too (your v2's 3/10 doesn't apply on 4.6-rc1..) I'll CC you on the next posting of the series which I want to do this week. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- 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