lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:14:17 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> To: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com> Cc: dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, zwisler@...nel.org, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, hch@...radead.org, lenb@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, darrick.wong@...cle.com, lcapitulino@...hat.com, kwolf@...hat.com, imammedo@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, nilal@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com, stefanha@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, david@...morbit.com, cohuck@...hat.com, xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, yuval.shaia@...cle.com, kilobyte@...band.pl, jstaron@...gle.com, rdunlap@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 4/7] dm: enable synchronous dax On Tue, Jun 11 2019 at 12:37pm -0400, Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com> wrote: > This patch sets dax device 'DAXDEV_SYNC' flag if all the target > devices of device mapper support synchrononous DAX. If device > mapper consists of both synchronous and asynchronous dax devices, > we don't set 'DAXDEV_SYNC' flag. > > 'dm_table_supports_dax' is refactored to pass 'iterate_devices_fn' > as argument so that the callers can pass the appropriate functions. > > Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com> Thanks, and for the benefit of others, passing function pointers like this is perfectly fine IMHO because this code is _not_ in the fast path. These methods are only for device creation. Reviewed-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists