On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:04:12PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> When DAX calls ext2_get_block() and the file offset points to a hole we
> currently don't set bh_result->b_size. When we re-enable PMD faults DAX
> will need bh_result->b_size to tell it the size of the hole so it can
> decide whether
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:47:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from
> > buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong?
>
> Not sure if he's really saying that, but i
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from
> buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong?
Not sure if he's really saying that, but it's wrong for sure. Just
to prove that I came up with a working ext2 iomap D
From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:ty...@mit.edu]
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the
> > work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support
> > in ext2 (and if people really cry for
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the
> work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support
> in ext2 (and if people really cry for it reinstate the trivial old xip
> support).
Why
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
> Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is
> entirely
> caller specific is unaceptable.
I finally figured out what you actually meant by this. You mean that instead
of having an aop->populate_pfn, you want to defi
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com]
>> /me grumbles about top-posting...
>
> Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I
> don't see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option. Unfortunately.
Much ap
From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com]
> /me grumbles about top-posting...
Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I don't
see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option. Unfortunately.
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox
> wrote:
> > I though
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't
> > > sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no
> > > real short-term need.
> >
> > S
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but
> > I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we
> > haven't finished shipping dax-1.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds
> > unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no real short-term
> > need.
>
> So your proposal is to remove buffer_heads from ext2?
No, the p
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org]
> The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with
> exchange servers :)).
That rather depends on how the Exchange servers are configured ... this isn't
the
appropriate place to discuss IT issues though.
> Either way
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but
> I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we
> haven't finished shipping dax-1.0.
I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it.
The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even
with exchange servers :)).
Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that
is entirely caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea
doesn't sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more work
/me grumbles about top-posting...
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I feel like we're not only building on shifting sands, but we haven't decided
> whether we're building a Pyramid or a Sphinx.
>
> I thought after Storage Summit, we had broad agreement that we were moving t
:48 PM
To: Theodore Ts'o ; Christoph Hellwig ; Ross
Zwisler ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Andrew
Morton ; linux-nvd...@ml01.01.org; Matthew Wilcox
; Dave Chinner ;
linux...@kvack.org; Andreas Dilger ; Alexander Viro
; Jan Kara ;
linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-e...@vger.kernel.org
Su
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:41:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > We're going to move forward killing buffer_heads in XFS. I think ext4
> > would dramatically benefit from this a well, as would ext2 (although I
> > think al
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> It's been on my todo list. The only reason why I haven't done it yet
> is because I knew you were working on a solution, and I didn't want to
> do things one way for buffered I/O, and a different way for Direct
> I/O, and disentangli
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:41:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> We're going to move forward killing buffer_heads in XFS. I think ext4
> would dramatically benefit from this a well, as would ext2 (although I
> think all that DAX work in ext2 is a horrible idea to start with).
It's been on
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> These changes don't remove the things in XFS needed by the old I/O and fault
> paths (e.g. xfs_get_blocks_direct() is still there an unchanged). Is the
> correct way forward to get buy-in from ext2/ext4 so that they also move to
> su
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version
> > of the iomap based DAX code here:
> >
> > http://git.infradead.org/users
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version
> of the iomap based DAX code here:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax
>
> By using iomap we don't even
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version
> of the iomap based DAX code here:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax
>
> By using iomap we don't even
Hi Ross,
can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version
of the iomap based DAX code here:
http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax
By using iomap we don't even have the size hole problem and totally
get out of the reverse-engineer what buffer
24 matches
Mail list logo
