On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:38:16PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add a dax operation zero_page_range, to zero a range of memory. This will
> > also clear any poison in the range being zeroed.
> >
> > As of now, zeroing of up to one page is allowed in a single call. There
> > are no callers which are trying to zero more than a page in a single call.
> > Once we grow the callers which zero more than a page in single call, we
> > can add that support. Primary reason for not doing that yet is that this
> > will add little complexity in dm implementation where a range might be
> > spanning multiple underlying targets and one will have to split the range
> > into multiple sub ranges and call zero_page_range() on individual targets.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/dax/super.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > include/linux/dax.h | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dax/super.c b/drivers/dax/super.c
> > index 0aa4b6bc5101..c912808bc886 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dax/super.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dax/super.c
> > @@ -344,6 +344,25 @@ size_t dax_copy_to_iter(struct dax_device *dax_dev, pgoff_t pgoff, void *addr,
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dax_copy_to_iter);
> >
> > +int dax_zero_page_range(struct dax_device *dax_dev, u64 offset, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + if (!dax_alive(dax_dev))
> > + return -ENXIO;
> > +
> > + if (!dax_dev->ops->zero_page_range)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> This seems too late to be doing the validation. It would be odd for
> random filesystem operations to see this error. I would move the check
> to alloc_dax() and fail that if the caller fails to implement the
> operation.
>
> An incremental patch on top to fix this up would be ok. Something like
> "Now that all dax_operations providers implement zero_page_range()
> mandate it at alloc_dax time".
Hi Dan,
Ok, I will send an incremental patch for this.
BTW, I have posted V6 of this patch series and you might want to look
at that instead of V5.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200228163456.1587-1-vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx/
Vivek
