From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxx] > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:19:24PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > No, I mean a network filesystem like 9p or cifs or nfs. If the memcpy > > is supposed to be performed by the backing device > > struct backing_dev has no relation to the DAX code. Even more so what's > the point of doing a DAXish memcpy in that case? If we buffer in > memory for network I/O we should just use the page cache. Oh, I didn't mean a 'struct backing_dev'. I meant that, conceptually, there is no driver for the filesystem to call. Here's the architecture that I'm trying to work with: Two guests on the same physical machine (or a guest and a host) have access to the same set of physical addresses. This might be an NV-DIMM, or it might just be DRAM (for the purposes of reducing guest overhead). The network filesystem has been enhanced with a call to allow the client to ask the server "What is the physical address for this range of bytes in this file?" We don't want to use the guest pagecache here. That's antithetical to the second usage, and it's inefficient for the first usage. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
