| Message ID | 20170925231404.32723-3-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > Currently only the blocksize is checked, but we should really be calling > bdev_dax_supported() which also tests to make sure we can get a > struct dax_device and that the dax_direct_access() path is working. > > This is the same check that we do for the "-o dax" mount option in > xfs_fs_fill_super(). > > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> I think we just want to pick this up ASAP. And between my vague memoried and that reviewed-by tag it already was part of a different series, wasn't it?
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:36:50AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > Currently only the blocksize is checked, but we should really be calling > > bdev_dax_supported() which also tests to make sure we can get a > > struct dax_device and that the dax_direct_access() path is working. > > > > This is the same check that we do for the "-o dax" mount option in > > xfs_fs_fill_super(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > I think we just want to pick this up ASAP. And between my vague > memoried and that reviewed-by tag it already was part of a different > series, wasn't it? Yep, the first 2 patches were part of this series: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/7/552 which you reviewed. I included them in this series because the later patches needed to build on them. It looks like they are now in Darrick's xfs-4.14-fixes branch, but haven't yet made it upstream.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:16:38AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:36:50AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > Currently only the blocksize is checked, but we should really be calling > > > bdev_dax_supported() which also tests to make sure we can get a > > > struct dax_device and that the dax_direct_access() path is working. > > > > > > This is the same check that we do for the "-o dax" mount option in > > > xfs_fs_fill_super(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > > > I think we just want to pick this up ASAP. And between my vague > > memoried and that reviewed-by tag it already was part of a different > > series, wasn't it? > > Yep, the first 2 patches were part of this series: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/7/552 > > which you reviewed. I included them in this series because the later patches > needed to build on them. It looks like they are now in Darrick's > xfs-4.14-fixes branch, but haven't yet made it upstream. I'm pulling that first patch from -fixes because Dave & Christoph started discussing it again in this new thread after I'd pushed the patch from September 7th to korg. The second patch looks fine, it'll stay. --D > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c index 26faeb9..0433aef 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_dax_invalidate( int *join_flags) { struct inode *inode = VFS_I(ip); + struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb; int error; *join_flags = 0; @@ -1100,7 +1101,7 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr_dax_invalidate( if (fa->fsx_xflags & FS_XFLAG_DAX) { if (!(S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) || S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))) return -EINVAL; - if (ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) + if (bdev_dax_supported(sb, sb->s_blocksize) < 0) return -EINVAL; }