On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:25:57PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Is this going to blow up iomap_dax_zero? It seems to use both bdev and > dax_dev on __dax_zero_page_range, which definitely uses both. > > (Or did all that get rearranged when I wasn't looking?) Ouch, it does. And that looks pretty broken. > Also, I guess this will break iomap swapfiles since it checks > iomap->bdev which we stop supplying with this patch... > though I have no idea if DAX swapfiles are even supported. Not sure if we support it. We didn't use to support it when swap used ->bmap, so until someone volunteers to test it we should disable it with the iomap swapfile code as well. But even then doing a detour through the block layer and thus the bdev makes very little sense. > > What's the harm in supplying both pointers? Just blowing up the size of the iomap. Especially once we add the inline data as the third option.
