On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:41 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 04:40:44PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > I don't have any reason not to pass phys_addr_t. If that sounds better, > > > will make changes. > > > > The problem is device-mapper. That wants to use offset to route > > through the map to the leaf device. If it weren't for the firmware > > communication requirement you could do: > > > > dax_direct_access(...) > > generic_dax_zero_page_range(...) > > > > ...but as long as the firmware error clearing path is required I think > > we need to do pass the pgoff through the interface and do the pgoff to > > virt / phys translation inside the ops handler. > > Maybe phys_addr_t was the wrong type - but why do we split the offset > into the block device argument into a pgoff and offset into page instead > of a single 64-bit value? Oh, got it yes, that looks odd for sub-page zeroing. Yes, let's just have one device relative byte-offset. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
