On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at 3:07pm -0400,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at 2:52pm -0400,
> > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ross Zwisler
> >> <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX is an indication that a given block device supports
> >> > filesystem DAX and should not be set for PMEM namespaces which are in "raw"
> >> > or "sector" modes. These namespaces lack struct page and are prevented
> >> > from participating in filesystem DAX.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> Why is this cc: stable? What is the user visible impact of this change
> >> especially given the requirement to validate QUEUE_FLAG_DAX with
> >> bdev_dax_supported()? Patch looks good, but it's just a cosmetic fixup
> >> afaics.
> >
> > This isn't cosmetic when you consider that stacking up a DM device is
> > looking at this flag to determine whether a table does or does _not_
> > support DAX.
> >
> > So this patch, in conjunction with the other changes in the series, is
> > certainly something I'd consider appropriate for stable.
>
> I think this classifies as something that never worked correctly and
> is not a regression. It does not identify which commit it is repairing
> or the user visible failure mode.
So you're taking issue with making stacked dax configs work in older
kernels? That's fine. We can drop the stable cc if you like.
But I mean we intended for this to work.. so the Fixes commit references
can easily be added, e.g.: 545ed20e6df68a4d2584a29a2a28ee8b2f7e9547
("dm: add infrastructure for DAX support")
