On Fri 08-09-17 11:39:13, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:25:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Okay, so other ideas (which you have also probably already though of)
> > > include:
> > >
> > > 1) Just return -EBUSY if anyone tries to change the DAX flag of an inode
> > > with
> >
On Fri 08-09-17 11:39:13, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:25:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Okay, so other ideas (which you have also probably already though of)
> > > include:
> > >
> > > 1) Just return -EBUSY if anyone tries to change the DAX flag of an inode
> > > with
> >
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:25:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Okay, so other ideas (which you have also probably already though of)
> > include:
> >
> > 1) Just return -EBUSY if anyone tries to change the DAX flag of an inode
> > with
> > open mappings or any open file handles.
>
> You
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:25:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Okay, so other ideas (which you have also probably already though of)
> > include:
> >
> > 1) Just return -EBUSY if anyone tries to change the DAX flag of an inode
> > with
> > open mappings or any open file handles.
>
> You
On Fri 08-09-17 09:25:43, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:19:00PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600,
On Fri 08-09-17 09:25:43, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:19:00PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:19:00PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > However, I wonder if this
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:19:00PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > However, I wonder if this
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > However, I wonder if this could
> > > be prevented at runtime, and only allow S_DAX to be set when
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:12:01AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > However, I wonder if this could
> > > be prevented at runtime, and only allow S_DAX to be set when
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > However, I wonder if this could
> > be prevented at runtime, and only allow S_DAX to be set when the inode is
> > first instantiated, and wouldn't be allowed to
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:51:48PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > However, I wonder if this could
> > be prevented at runtime, and only allow S_DAX to be set when the inode is
> > first instantiated, and wouldn't be allowed to
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
> >>
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:26:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500,
On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen
On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> The
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> >> > The original intent of this
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:54:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> >> > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>> > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
>> > so that it would be
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>> > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
>> > so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
> > so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
> > several related issues in both
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:12:35PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
> > so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
> > several related issues in both
On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
> so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
> several related issues in both ext4 and XFS.
Hi Ross -
hch had a lot of reasons to nuke the dax flag
On 9/5/17 5:35 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
> so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
> several related issues in both ext4 and XFS.
Hi Ross -
hch had a lot of reasons to nuke the dax flag
The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
several related issues in both ext4 and XFS.
I'm not fully happy with the ways that ext4 DAX interacts with conflicting
features (journaling, inline
The original intent of this series was to add a per-inode DAX flag to ext4
so that it would be consistent with XFS. In my travels I found and fixed
several related issues in both ext4 and XFS.
I'm not fully happy with the ways that ext4 DAX interacts with conflicting
features (journaling, inline
26 matches
Mail list logo