From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4219C2C81 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 8727968AFE; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:14:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:14:30 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Mike Snitzer , Ira Weiny , dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/29] xfs: use IOMAP_DAX to check for DAX mappings Message-ID: <20211124071430.GD7229@lst.de> References: <20211109083309.584081-1-hch@lst.de> <20211109083309.584081-24-hch@lst.de> <20211123230124.GR266024@magnolia> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211123230124.GR266024@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 03:01:24PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:33:03AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Use the explicit DAX flag instead of checking the inode flag in the > > iomap code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Any particular reason to pass this in as a flag vs. querying the inode? Same reason as the addition of IOMAP_DAX. But I think I'll redo this a bit to do the XFS paramater passing first and then actually check IOMAP_DAX together with introducing it to make it all a little more clear.