On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 12:03 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:30:50AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * There are no users as of now. Once users are there, fix dm code
> > > + * to be able to split a long range across targets.
> > > + */
> >
> > This comment confused me. I think this wants to say something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * There are now callers that want to zero across a page boundary as of
> > * now. Once there are users this check can be removed after the
> > * device mapper code has been updated to split ranges across targets.
> > */
>
> Yes, that's what I wanted to say but I missed one line. Thanks. Will fix
> it.
>
> >
> > > +static int pmem_dax_zero_page_range(struct dax_device *dax_dev, pgoff_t pgoff,
> > > + unsigned int offset, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > + int rc = 0;
> > > + phys_addr_t phys_pos = pgoff * PAGE_SIZE + offset;
> >
> > Any reason not to pass a phys_addr_t in the calling convention for the
> > method and maybe also for dax_zero_page_range itself?
>
> I don't have any reason not to pass phys_addr_t. If that sounds better,
> will make changes.
The problem is device-mapper. That wants to use offset to route
through the map to the leaf device. If it weren't for the firmware
communication requirement you could do:
dax_direct_access(...)
generic_dax_zero_page_range(...)
...but as long as the firmware error clearing path is required I think
we need to do pass the pgoff through the interface and do the pgoff to
virt / phys translation inside the ops handler.
