[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160910174910.yyirb7smiob7evt5@thunk.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:49:10 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the
> work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support
> in ext2 (and if people really cry for it reinstate the trivial old xip
> support).
Why is so much work required to support the new DAX interfaces in
ext2? Is that unique to ext2, or is adding DAX support just going to
be painful for all file systems? Hopefully it's not the latter,
right?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists