On 2/2/2022 5:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 02:31:47PM -0700, Jane Chu wrote:
>> dax_recovery_write() dax op is only required for DAX device that
>> export DAXDEV_RECOVERY indicating its capability to recover from
>> poisons.
>>
>> DM may be nested, if part of the base dax devices forming a DM
>> device support dax recovery, the DM device is marked with such
>> capability.
>
> I'd fold this into the previous 2 patches as the flag and method
> are clearly very tightly coupled.
Make sense, will do.
>
>> +static size_t linear_dax_recovery_write(struct dm_target *ti, pgoff_t pgoff,
>> + void *addr, size_t bytes, struct iov_iter *i)
>
> Function line continuations use two tab indentations or alignment after
> the opening brace.
Okay.
>
>> +{
>> + struct dax_device *dax_dev = linear_dax_pgoff(ti, &pgoff);
>> +
>> + if (!dax_recovery_capable(dax_dev))
>> + return (size_t) -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Returning a negativ errno through an unsigned argument looks dangerous.
Sorry, should be (ssize_t) there.
>
>> + /* recovery_write: optional operation. */
>
> And explanation of what the method is use for might be more useful than
> mentioning that is is optional.
Will add substance to comments.
>
>> + size_t (*recovery_write)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, void *, size_t,
>> + struct iov_iter *);
>
> Spelling out the arguments tends to help readability, but then again
> none of the existing methods does it.
Thanks!
-jane
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
