On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: [..] >> My concern is whether flushing potentially invalid virtual addresses >> is problematic on some architectures. Maybe it's just FUD, but it's >> less work in my opinion to just revalidate the address versus auditing >> each arch for this concern. > > I don't think that the addresses have the potential of being invalid from the > driver's point of view - we are still holding a reference on the block queue > via dax_map_atomic(), so we should be protected against races vs block device > removal. I think the only question is whether it is okay to flush an address > that we know to be valid from the block device's point of view, but which the > filesystem may have truncated from being allocated to our inode. > > Does that all make sense? Yes, I was confusing which revalidation we were talking about. As long as the dax_map_atomic() is there I don't think we need any further revalidation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
