xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_se

To: "hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors
From: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 21:01:15 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxx>, "akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@xxxxxxxxx>, "david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "jack@xxxxxxx" <jack@xxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160325104418.GA10525@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1458861450-17705-1-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <1458861450-17705-5-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <20160325104418.GA10525@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHRhiNvKoQhiC/aYEiTGtqXM3Dgv59qb6IAgACsXAA=
Thread-topic: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors
On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 03:44 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:17:29PM -0600, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > 
> > @@ -72,16 +72,7 @@ xfs_zero_extent(
> > Â   struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> > Â   xfs_daddr_t     sector = xfs_fsb_to_db(ip, start_fsb);
> > Â   sector_t        block = XFS_BB_TO_FSBT(mp, sector);
> > -   ssize_t         size = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, count_fsb);
> > Â
> > -   if (IS_DAX(VFS_I(ip)))
> > -           return
> > dax_clear_sectors(xfs_find_bdev_for_inode(VFS_I(ip)),
> > -                           sector, size);
> > -
> > -   /*
> > -   Â* let the block layer decide on the fastest method of
> > -   Â* implementing the zeroing.
> > -   Â*/
> > Â   return sb_issue_zeroout(mp->m_super, block, count_fsb,
> > GFP_NOFS);
> While not new: using sb_issue_zeroout in XFS is wrong as it doesn't
> account for the RT device.ÂÂWe need the xfs_find_bdev_for_inode and
> call blkdev_issue_zeroout directly with the bdev it returned.

Ok, I'll fix and send a v2. Thanks!
> 
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>