On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:33:16PM -0800, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wro
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jared Hulbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>>
>>> > However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:39:15PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> >> However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
> >> value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not cor
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>
>> > However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
>> > value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not correc
[ adding btrfs, resend with the correct list address ]
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>
>> However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
>> value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not correct. With
[ adding btrfs ]
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>
>> However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
>> value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not correct. With the code as it is
>> currently written
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>
> > However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
> > value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not correct. With the code as it is
> > currently written, an fsync or
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:11:42PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, the
> value in inode->i_sb->s_bdev is not correct. With the code as it is
> currently written, an fsync or msync to a DAX enabled raw block device will
> cause a NUL
There are a number of places in dax.c that look up the struct block_device
associated with an inode. Previously this was done by just using
inode->i_sb->s_bdev. This is correct in some cases, such as when using
ext2 and ext4.
However, for raw block devices and for XFS with a real-time device, th
9 matches
Mail list logo