[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49twu6nugs.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:57:39 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 17/21] libnvdimm: infrastructure for btt devices
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:46:16PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> Don't screw up rw_page. The point of rw_page is to read or write a page
>>>> cache page. It can sleep, and it indicates success by using the page
>>>> flags. Don't try and scqueeze rw_bytes into it. If you want rw_bytes
>>>> to be a queue operation, that's one thing, but don't mess with rw_page.
>>>
>>> Oh, I forgot about the page manipulating nature. Yes, we'll need a different
>>> operation in this case.
>>
>> I didn't see this addressed in the new patch set. I'm also concerned
>> about the layering, but I haven't put enough time into it to really make
>> a better suggestion. I really dislike the idea of yet another device
>> stacking model in the kernel and I'm worried the code will go in, and the
>> sysfs interface will end up as a "user abi" and we won't be able to
>> change it in the future.
>>
>> Dan, have you made any progress on this, or do you have plans to?
>
> ? in v6 ->rw_bytes() moved from libnvdimm local hackery to a top-level
> block device operation. Is that your concern or something else?
Hmm, I guess I was conflating two things. I see now that you did move
the rw_bytes into the block device operations, that looks good. I'll
table my concerns over yet another stacking model until I can say
something intelligent about it.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists