On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4 > so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed > several related issues in both ext4 and XFS. Hi Ross - hch had a lot of reasons to nuke the dax flag from orbit, and we just /disabled/ it in xfs due to its habit of crashing the kernel... so a couple questions: 1) does this series pass hch's "test the per-inode DAX flag" fstest? 2) do we have an agreement that we need this flag at all, or is this just a parity item because xfs has^whad a per-inode flag? Thanks, -Eric > I'm not fully happy with the ways that ext4 DAX interacts with conflicting > features (journaling, inline data and encryption). My goal with this > series was to make all these interactions as consistent as possilble, and > of course to make them safe. If anyone has ideas for improvements, I'm > very open. > > Ross Zwisler (9): > ext4: remove duplicate extended attributes defs > xfs: always use DAX if mount option is used > xfs: validate bdev support for DAX inode flag > ext4: add ext4_should_use_dax() > ext4: ext4_change_inode_journal_flag error handling > ext4: safely transition S_DAX on journaling changes > ext4: prevent data corruption with inline data + DAX > ext4: add sanity check for encryption + DAX > ext4: add per-inode DAX flag > > fs/ext4/ext4.h | 47 ++++++--------------------------------------- > fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > fs/ext4/inline.c | 10 ---------- > fs/ext4/inode.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > fs/ext4/super.c | 8 ++++++++ > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 7 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
