"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 13:18 +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 14:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > > Vishal Verma wrote:
>> > > >
>> > <..>
>> >
>> > > > +
>> > > > + rc = kstrtobool(buf, &val);
>> > > > + if (rc)
>> > > > + return rc;
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps:
>> > >
>> > > if (dev_dax->memmap_on_memory == val)
>> > > return len;
>> > >
>> > > ...and skip the check below when it is going to be a nop
>> > >
>> > > > +
>> > > > + device_lock(dax_region->dev);
>> > > > + if (!dax_region->dev->driver) {
>> > >
>> > > Is the polarity backwards here? I.e. if the device is already
>> > > attached to
>> > > the kmem driver it is too late to modify memmap_on_memory policy.
>> >
>> > Hm this sounded logical until I tried it. After a reconfigure-
>> > device to
>> > devdax (i.e. detach kmem), I get the -EBUSY if I invert this check.
>>
>> Can you try to unbind the device via sysfs by hand and retry?
>>
> I think what is happening maybe is while kmem gets detached, the device
> goes back to another dax driver (hmem in my tests). So either way, the
> check for if (driver) or if (!driver) won't distinguish between kmem
> vs. something else.
>
> Maybe we just remove this check? Or add an explicit kmem check somehow?
I think it's good to check kmem explicitly here.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
