On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:30:10PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> This masking prevents access to the end of the device via dax_do_io(),
> and is unnecessary as arch_add_memory() would have rejected an unaligned
> allocation.
>
> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
> Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 17 +++--------------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> index e46988fbdee5..93472953e231 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> @@ -100,26 +100,15 @@ static int pmem_rw_page(struct block_device *bdev,
> sector_t sector,
> }
>
> static long pmem_direct_access(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> - void __pmem **kaddr, unsigned long *pfn)
> + void __pmem **kaddr, pfn_t *pfn)
It seems kind of weird to change only this instance of direct_access() to have
the last argument as a pfn_t instead of an unsigned long? If pfn_t is more
descriptive (I think it is) should we update the definition in struct
block_device_operations and all the other implementors of direct_access as
well? If that's touching too much, let's do them all together later, but
let's not change one now and have them be inconsistent.
> {
> struct pmem_device *pmem = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> resource_size_t offset = sector * 512 + pmem->data_offset;
> - resource_size_t size;
>
> - if (pmem->data_offset) {
> - /*
> - * Limit the direct_access() size to what is covered by
> - * the memmap
> - */
> - size = (pmem->size - offset) & ~ND_PFN_MASK;
> - } else
> - size = pmem->size - offset;
> -
> - /* FIXME convert DAX to comprehend that this mapping has a lifetime */
> *kaddr = pmem->virt_addr + offset;
> - *pfn = (pmem->phys_addr + offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + *pfn = __phys_to_pfn(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags);
__phys_to_pfn() only takes a single argument (the paddr) in v4.3,
jens/for-4.4/integrity and in nvdimm/libnvdimm-for-next. Is this second
argument of pfn_flags actually correct?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
