Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? Hmm, I guess I was conflating two things. I see now that you did move the rw_bytes into the block device operations, that looks good. I'll table my concerns over yet another stacking model until I can say something intelligent about it. Cheers, Jeff -- 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
