From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:59541 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751090AbdJAIR2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2017 04:17:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 10:17:26 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] xfs: protect S_DAX transitions in XFS read path Message-ID: <20171001081726.GD11895@lst.de> References: <20170925231404.32723-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20170925231404.32723-4-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20170926063234.GA6870@lst.de> <20170926143357.GA18758@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dan Williams Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ross Zwisler , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Darrick J. Wong" , "J. Bruce Fields" , Dave Chinner , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:11:55AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > I think we'll always need an explicit override available, but yes we > need to think about what the override looks like in the context of a > kernel that is able to automatically pick the right I/O policy > relative to the media type. A potential mixed policy for reads vs > writes makes sense. Where would this finer grained I/O policy > selection go other than more inode flags? fadvise?