From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:65166 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754121AbeEaUeM (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:34:10 -0600 From: Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dax: change bdev_dax_supported() to support boolean returns Message-ID: <20180531203410.GB28256@linux.intel.com> References: <20180529195106.14268-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180529195106.14268-3-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20180529212510.GJ30110@magnolia> <20180529220114.GA13948@linux.intel.com> <20180531191332.GB7825@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180531191332.GB7825@magnolia> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Ross Zwisler , Toshi Kani , Mike Snitzer , dm-devel@redhat.com, Dave Jiang , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:01:14PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:25:10PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 01:51:01PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > > From: Dave Jiang > > > > > > > > The function return values are confusing with the way the function is > > > > named. We expect a true or false return value but it actually returns > > > > 0/-errno. This makes the code very confusing. Changing the return values > > > > to return a bool where if DAX is supported then return true and no DAX > > > > support returns false. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > > > > > Looks ok, do you want me to pull the first two patches through the xfs > > > tree? > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > I'm not sure what's best. If you do that then Mike will need to have a DM > > branch for the rest of the series based on your stable commits, yea? > > > > Mike what would you prefer? > > I /was/ about to say that I would pull in the first two patches, but now > I can't get xfs to mount with pmem at all, and have no way of testing > this...? I'm not sure what's up - I'll dig in and find out.