[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <696970ff-6a35-831a-da82-bba7975628c7@fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 18:06:03 +0800
From: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <djwong@...nel.org>,
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <david@...morbit.com>,
<jane.chu@...cle.com>, <rgoldwyn@...e.de>,
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <willy@...radead.org>,
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>, <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/07] xfs: support CoW in fsdax mode
在 2022/5/10 13:45, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_DAX
>> +int
>> +xfs_dax_fault(
>> + struct vm_fault *vmf,
>> + enum page_entry_size pe_size,
>> + bool write_fault,
>> + pfn_t *pfn)
>> +{
>> + return dax_iomap_fault(vmf, pe_size, pfn, NULL,
>> + (write_fault && !vmf->cow_page) ?
>> + &xfs_dax_write_iomap_ops :
>> + &xfs_read_iomap_ops);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> Is there any reason this is in xfs_iomap.c and not xfs_file.c?
Yes, It's better to put it in xfs_file.c since it's the only caller. I
didn't notice it...
--
Thanks,
Ruan.
>
> Otherwise the patch looks good:
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists