On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:32 PM Jane Chu <jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If one of the MD raid participating target dax device supports
> DAXDEV_RECOVERY, then it'll be declared on the whole that the
> MD device is capable of DAXDEV_RECOVERY.
> And only when the recovery process reaches to the target driver,
> it becomes deterministic whether a certain dax address range
> maybe recovered, or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/md/dm-table.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> index e43096cfe9e2..8af8a81b6172 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> @@ -844,6 +844,36 @@ static bool dm_table_supports_dax(struct dm_table *t,
> return true;
> }
>
> +/* Check whether device is capable of dax poison recovery */
> +static int device_poison_recovery_capable(struct dm_target *ti,
> + struct dm_dev *dev, sector_t start, sector_t len, void *data)
> +{
> + if (!dev->dax_dev)
> + return false;
> + return dax_recovery_capable(dev->dax_dev);
Hmm it's not clear to me that dax_recovery_capable is necessary. If a
dax_dev does not support recovery it can simply fail the
dax_direct_access() call with the DAX_RECOVERY flag set.
So all DM needs to worry about is passing the new @flags parameter
through the stack.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
