[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180619064451.GA24824@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:44:51 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] iomap: move bdev and dax_dev in a union
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:25:57PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Is this going to blow up iomap_dax_zero? It seems to use both bdev and
> dax_dev on __dax_zero_page_range, which definitely uses both.
>
> (Or did all that get rearranged when I wasn't looking?)
Ouch, it does. And that looks pretty broken.
> Also, I guess this will break iomap swapfiles since it checks
> iomap->bdev which we stop supplying with this patch...
> though I have no idea if DAX swapfiles are even supported.
Not sure if we support it. We didn't use to support it when
swap used ->bmap, so until someone volunteers to test it we
should disable it with the iomap swapfile code as well. But
even then doing a detour through the block layer and thus
the bdev makes very little sense.
>
> What's the harm in supplying both pointers?
Just blowing up the size of the iomap. Especially once we add
the inline data as the third option.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists