On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:21:38AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: >> >> > And what do you do for an architecture with virtuall indexed caches? >> >> >> >> Persistent memory is not supported on such architectures - it is only >> >> supported on x86-64 and arm64. >> > >> > For now. But once support is added your driver will just corrupt data >> > unless you have the right API in place. >> >> I'm also in the process of ripping out page-less dax support. With >> pages we can potentially leverage the VIVT-cache support in some >> architectures, likely with more supporting infrastructure for >> dax_flush(). > > Should I remove all the code for page-less persistent memory from my > driver? > Yes, that would be my recommendation. You can see that filesystem-dax is on its way to dropping page-less support in this series: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2017-October/013125.html -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
