lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 02/10] dax: Introduce holder for dax_device
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:54 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
[..]
> > Yes, I think we should just fail the holder registration and
> > DAX+reflink unless the FS being mounted on a whole device. I know Ted
> > and others had reservations about moving filesystems to be mounted on
> > dax-devices directly, but hopefully the whole-block_device requirement
> > is a workable middle ground?
>
> I think you have to be /very/ careful about that kind of statement --
>
> Take ext4 for example. It has a lot of statically allocated ondisk
> metadata. Someone could decide that it's a good idea to wire up a media
> failure notification so that we shut down the fs if (say) a giant hole
> opens up in the middle of the inode table. However, registering any
> kind of media failure handler brings along this requirement for not
> having partitions.
>
> This means that if ext4 finds a filesystem on a partition on a pmem
> device and someone else has already registered a media failure handler,
> it will have to choose between foregoing media failure notifications or
> failing the mount outright.

...good example.

> Or you could support notification call chains...

We ended up with explicit callbacks after hch balked at a notifier
call-chain, but I think we're back to that now. The partition mistake
might be unfixable, but at least bdev_dax_pgoff() is dead. Notifier
call chains have their own locking so, Ruan, this still does not need
to touch dax_read_lock().

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-06 01:12    [W:0.088 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site