[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210823132132.GA17677@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:21:32 +0200
From: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com" <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>,
Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>,
"david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
"snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/9] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:10:51AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Sounds like a nice solution. I think I can add an is_notify_supported() interface in dax_holder_ops and check it when register dax_holder.
>
> Shouldn't the fs avoid registering a memory failure handler if it is
> not prepared to take over? For example, shouldn't this case behave
> identically to ext4 that will not even register a callback?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists