On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> Don't screw up rw_page. The point of rw_page is to read or write a page >>> cache page. It can sleep, and it indicates success by using the page >>> flags. Don't try and scqueeze rw_bytes into it. If you want rw_bytes >>> to be a queue operation, that's one thing, but don't mess with rw_page. >> >> Oh, I forgot about the page manipulating nature. Yes, we'll need a different >> operation in this case. > > I didn't see this addressed in the new patch set. I'm also concerned > about the layering, but I haven't put enough time into it to really make > a better suggestion. I really dislike the idea of yet another device > stacking model in the kernel and I'm worried the code will go in, and the > sysfs interface will end up as a "user abi" and we won't be able to > change it in the future. > > Dan, have you made any progress on this, or do you have plans to? ? in v6 ->rw_bytes() moved from libnvdimm local hackery to a top-level block device operation. Is that your concern or something else? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
