On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 13:59 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01 2017 at 2:12pm -0400, > > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > I'm questioning the need to have yet another Kbuild CONFIG option. If > > > the user has enabled CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM and CONFIG_FS_DAX (DAX already > > > gets selected by CONFIG_FS_DAX) then shouldn't the DM capabilities just > > > be enabled? > > > > > > Guess I'm just skeptical of: why do we want to move to a model where > > > users need to opt-in to DM support for DAX? > > > > > > I also _really_ don't like each target's DAX support being colocated in > > > drivers/md/dm-dax.c > > > > > > This all looks and feels like a serious step backwards. > > > > Ok, you want ifdef'd sections of DAX code in each target and make > > DM_DAX a silent option that gets enabled with BLK_DEV_PMEM, anything > > else? > > Actually, no, I was thrown off by Bart's suggestion to move code > around. I can handle this all by deleting "select DAX" and adding more > stubbed out dax helpers. Hello Mike and Dan, How about one *-dax.c file per *.c dm file that has to be modified to add DAX support? I think that approach would avoid collocation of code for different targets in a single dm-dax.c file and would also avoid that #ifdef CONFIG_DAX statements have to be added. This approach is orthogonal to removal of CONFIG_DM_DAX. Thanks, Bart. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
