[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57279D57.5020800@plexistor.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:32:55 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io
On 05/02/2016 09:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
<>
>
> The semantic I am talking about preserving is:
>
> buffered / unaligned write of a bad sector => -EIO on reading into the
> page cache
>
What about aligned buffered write? like write 0-to-eof
This still broken? (and is what restore apps do)
> ...and that the only guaranteed way to clear an error (assuming the
> block device supports it) is an O_DIRECT write.
>
Sure fixing dax_do_io will guaranty that.
<>
> I still think we're talking past each other on this point.
Yes we are!
> This patch
> set is not overloading error semantics, it's fixing the error handling
> problem that was introduced in this commit:
>
> d475c6346a38 dax,ext2: replace XIP read and write with DAX I/O
>
> ...where we started overloading O_DIRECT and dax_do_io() semantics.
>
But above does not fix them does it? it just completely NULLs DAX for
O_DIRECT which is a great pity, why did we do all this work in the first
place.
And then it keeps broken the aligned buffered writes, which are still
broken after this set.
I have by now read the v2 patches. And I think you guys did not yet try
the proper fix for dax_do_io. I think you need to go deeper into the loops
and selectively call bdev_* when error on a specific page copy. No need to
go through direct_IO path at all.
Do you need that I send you a patch to demonstrate what I mean?
But yes I feel too that "we're talking past each other". I did want
to come to LSF and talk to you, but was not invited. Should I call you?
Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists