On 10/21/2021 10:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:49:15AM +0000, Jane Chu wrote: >> I've looked through your "futher decouple DAX from block devices" series >> and likes the use of xarray in place of the host hash list. >> Which upstream version is the series based upon? >> If it's based on your development repo, I'd be happy to take a clone >> and rebase my patches on yours if you provide a link. Please let me >> know the best way to cooperate. > > It is based on linux-next from when it was posted. A git tree is here: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/dax-block-cleanup > >> That said, I'm unclear at what you're trying to suggest with respect >> to the 'DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY' flag. The flag came from upper dax-fs >> call stack to the dm target layer, and the dm targets are equipped >> with handling pmem driver specific task, so it appears that the flag >> would need to be passed down to the native pmem layer, right? >> Am I totally missing your point? > > We'll need to pass it through (assuming we want to keep supporting > dm, see the recent discussion with Dan). > > FYI, here is a sketch where I'd like to move to, but this isn't properly > tested yet: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/dax-devirtualize > > To support something like DAXDEV_F_RECOVERYwe'd need a separate > dax_operations methods. Which to me suggest it probably should be > a different operation (fallocate / ioctl / etc) as Darrick did earlier. > Thanks for the info! -jane -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
