On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at 3:07pm -0400, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Mike Snitzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at 2:52pm -0400, > > Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ross Zwisler > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX is an indication that a given block device supports > >> > filesystem DAX and should not be set for PMEM namespaces which are in > >> > "raw" > >> > or "sector" modes. These namespaces lack struct page and are prevented > >> > from participating in filesystem DAX. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <[email protected]> > >> > Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <[email protected]> > >> > Cc: [email protected] > >> > >> Why is this cc: stable? What is the user visible impact of this change > >> especially given the requirement to validate QUEUE_FLAG_DAX with > >> bdev_dax_supported()? Patch looks good, but it's just a cosmetic fixup > >> afaics. > > > > This isn't cosmetic when you consider that stacking up a DM device is > > looking at this flag to determine whether a table does or does _not_ > > support DAX. > > > > So this patch, in conjunction with the other changes in the series, is > > certainly something I'd consider appropriate for stable. > > I think this classifies as something that never worked correctly and > is not a regression. It does not identify which commit it is repairing > or the user visible failure mode. So you're taking issue with making stacked dax configs work in older kernels? That's fine. We can drop the stable cc if you like. But I mean we intended for this to work.. so the Fixes commit references can easily be added, e.g.: 545ed20e6df68a4d2584a29a2a28ee8b2f7e9547 ("dm: add infrastructure for DAX support") _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
