On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:07:40PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at 2:52pm -0400, > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ross Zwisler > >> <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX is an indication that a given block device supports > >> > filesystem DAX and should not be set for PMEM namespaces which are in "raw" > >> > or "sector" modes. These namespaces lack struct page and are prevented > >> > from participating in filesystem DAX. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > >> Why is this cc: stable? What is the user visible impact of this change > >> especially given the requirement to validate QUEUE_FLAG_DAX with > >> bdev_dax_supported()? Patch looks good, but it's just a cosmetic fixup > >> afaics. > > > > This isn't cosmetic when you consider that stacking up a DM device is > > looking at this flag to determine whether a table does or does _not_ > > support DAX. > > > > So this patch, in conjunction with the other changes in the series, is > > certainly something I'd consider appropriate for stable. > > I think this classifies as something that never worked correctly and > is not a regression. It does not identify which commit it is repairing > or the user visible failure mode. Ah, do I need a Fixes: tag for patch 2, then? That one *does* need to go to stable, I think. -- 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
