From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] re-enable DAX PMD support Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160815190918.20672-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20160815211106.GA31566@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: Ross Zwisler , Dan Williams , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Theodore Ts'o" , Alexander Viro , Andreas Dilger , Andrew Morton , Dave Chinner , Jan Kara , linux-ext4 , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160815211106.GA31566@linux.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 01:21:47PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Ross Zwisler >> wrote: >> > DAX PMDs have been disabled since Jan Kara introduced DAX radix tree based >> > locking. This series allows DAX PMDs to participate in the DAX radix tree >> > based locking scheme so that they can be re-enabled. >> >> Looks good to me. >> >> > This series restores DAX PMD functionality back to what it was before it >> > was disabled. There is still a known issue between DAX PMDs and hole >> > punch, which I am currently working on and which I plan to address with a >> > separate series. >> >> Perhaps we should hold off on applying patch 6 and 7 until after the >> hole-punch fix is ready? > > Sure, I'm cool with holding off on patch 7 (the Kconfig change) until after > the hole punch fix is ready. > > I don't see a reason to hold off on patch 6, though? It stands on it's own, > implements the correct locking, and doesn't break anything. Whoops, I just meant 7. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org