[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66288ac38b770_a96f294c6@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 21:29:55 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
<axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] block: Introduce CBD (CXL Block Device)
Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> From: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang.linux@...il.com>
>
> Hi all,
> This patchset introduce cbd (CXL block device). It's based on linux 6.8, and available at:
> https://github.com/DataTravelGuide/linux
>
[..]
> (4) dax is not supported yet:
> same with famfs, dax device is not supported here, because dax device does not support
> dev_dax_iomap so far. Once dev_dax_iomap is supported, CBD can easily support DAX mode.
I am glad that famfs is mentioned here, it demonstrates you know about
it. However, unfortunately this cover letter does not offer any analysis
of *why* the Linux project should consider this additional approach to
the inter-host shared-memory enabling problem.
To be clear I am neutral at best on some of the initiatives around CXL
memory sharing vs pooling, but famfs at least jettisons block-devices
and gets closer to a purpose-built memory semantic.
So my primary question is why would Linux need both famfs and cbd? I am
sure famfs would love feedback and help vs developing competing efforts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists