[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gAbwS9yKNgAN9ytpDg7Jqh1FubZbGSfbFP0f-DdXPpCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:14:04 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:10:04PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> How about we solve the copy_from_user() abuse first before we hijack
>> this thread for some future feature that afaics has no patches posted
>> yet.
>
> Solving copy_from_user abuse first sounds perfectly fine to me. But
> please do so without abusing the block layer for persistent memory
> access. Given that we don't have use cases for different pmem access
> methods in a single OS image yet let's avoid introducing new ops
> for now and just remove the copy_from_user abuse.
The use case that we have now is distinguishing volatile vs persistent
memory (brd vs pmem).
I took a look at mtd layering approach and the main difference is that
layers above the block layer do not appear to know anything about mtd
specifics. For fs/dax.c we currently need some path to retrieve a dax
anchor object through the block device.
> In the longer run I like your dax_operations, but they need to be
> separate from the block layer.
I'll move them from block_device_operations to dax data hanging off of
the bdev_inode, or is there a better way to go from bdev-to-dax?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists