On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:25 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 09:41 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at 6:22pm -0400,
> > > Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20 2016 at 5:28pm -0400,
> > > > Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > :
> > > > Looks good, I folded it in and tested it to work. Pushed to my 'wip'
> > > > branch.
> > > >
> > > > No longer seeing any corruption in my test that was using partitions
> > > > to span pmem devices with a dm-linear device.
> > > >
> > > > Jens, any chance you'd be open to picking up the first 2 patches in
> > > > this series? Or would you like to see them folded or something
> > > > different?
> > >
> > > I'm now wondering if we'd be better off setting a new QUEUE_FLAG_DAX
> > > rather than establish GENHD_FL_DAX on the genhd?
> > >
> > > It'd be quite a bit easier to allow upper layers (e.g. XFS and ext4) to
> > > check for a queue flag.
> >
> > I think GENHD_FL_DAX is more appropriate since DAX does not use a request
> > queue, except for protecting the underlining device being disabled while
> > direct_access() is called (b2e0d1625e19).
> >
> > About protecting direct_access, this patch assumes that the underlining
> > device cannot be disabled until dtr() is called. Is this correct? If
> > not, I will need to call dax_map_atomic().
>
> Kernel internal usages of dax should be using dax_map_atomic() to
> safely resolve device removal races.
Will do. In such case, shall I move dax_[un]map_atomic() to block_dev.c and
rename them to bdev_dax_[un]map_atomic()?
Thanks,
-Toshi��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����w��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
