Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices

From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani-ZPxbGqLxI0U@public.gmane.org>
To: "dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
	<dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org"
	<axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>,
	"sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
	<sandeen-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
	<snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"axboe-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org"
	<axboe-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-nvdimm-y27Ovi1pjclAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-nvdimm-y27Ovi1pjclAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-raid-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-raid-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	"dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
	<dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org"
	<viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>,
	"agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
	<agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support DAX for device-mapper dm-linear devices
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:56:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1466527550.3504.273.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4ht8B7dHe1ckv5d=bOrRzCy3=ZDVSTD0rRsak_LYD8r8g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:45 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:25 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
 :
> > > > I think GENHD_FL_DAX is more appropriate since DAX does not use a
> > > > request queue, except for protecting the underlining device being
> > > > disabled while direct_access() is called (b2e0d1625e19).
> > > > 
> > > > About protecting direct_access, this patch assumes that the
> > > > underlining device cannot be disabled until dtr() is called.  Is this
> > > > correct?  If not, I will need to call dax_map_atomic().
> > >
> > > Kernel internal usages of dax should be using dax_map_atomic() to
> > > safely resolve device removal races.
> >
> > Will do.  In such case, shall I move dax_[un]map_atomic() to block_dev.c
> > and rename them to bdev_dax_[un]map_atomic()?
>
> Sounds good to me.  I know Jeff and Christoph don't like the current
> calling convention of passing in a structure.  Just note that they
> might ask you to change it back to a list of parameters if it moves to
> bdev_dax_map_atomic().

OK, I will change it back to a list of parameters as well.

Thanks,
-Toshi
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm