[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160815211106.GA31566@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:11:06 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] re-enable DAX PMD support
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 01:21:47PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Ross Zwisler
> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > DAX PMDs have been disabled since Jan Kara introduced DAX radix tree based
> > locking. This series allows DAX PMDs to participate in the DAX radix tree
> > based locking scheme so that they can be re-enabled.
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> > This series restores DAX PMD functionality back to what it was before it
> > was disabled. There is still a known issue between DAX PMDs and hole
> > punch, which I am currently working on and which I plan to address with a
> > separate series.
>
> Perhaps we should hold off on applying patch 6 and 7 until after the
> hole-punch fix is ready?
Sure, I'm cool with holding off on patch 7 (the Kconfig change) until after
the hole punch fix is ready.
I don't see a reason to hold off on patch 6, though? It stands on it's own,
implements the correct locking, and doesn't break anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists