[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150831192640.GA15717@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:26:40 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax, pmem: add support for msync
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 09:06:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:59:44PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > For DAX msync we just need to flush the given range using
> > wb_cache_pmem(), which is now a public part of the PMEM API.
> >
> > The inclusion of <linux/dax.h> in fs/dax.c was done to make checkpatch
> > happy. Previously it was complaining about a bunch of undeclared
> > functions that could be made static.
>
> Should this be abstracted by adding a ->msync method? Maybe not
> worth to do for now, but it might be worth to keep that in mind.
Where would we add the ->msync method? Do you mean to the PMEM API, or
somewhere else?
--
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