[PATCH 2/2] ndctl: merge firmware-update to dimm.c as one of the dimm ops

Since update-firmware replicate a lot of the parsing code that dimm.c already uses, moving update-firmware to dimm.c and utilize the already working functionalities. Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang --- ndctl/Makefile.am |1 ndctl/dimm.c | 495

[PATCH 1/2] ndctl: add check for update firmware supported

Adding generic and intel support function to allow check if update firmware is supported by the kernel. Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang --- ndctl/lib/firmware.c | 11 +++ ndctl/lib/intel.c | 24 ndctl/lib/libndctl.sym |1 +

Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] vfio, dax: prevent long term filesystem-dax pins and other fixes

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:19:54PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > The following series implements... > Changes since v3 [1]: > > * Kill IS_DAX() in favor of explicit IS_FSDAX() and IS_DEVDAX() helpers. > Jan noted, "having IS_DAX() and IS_FSDAX() doing almost the same, just > not exactly the

Re: xfstests 344 deadlock on NOVA

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15:55AM -0800, Andiry Xu wrote: > Hi, > > I encounter a problem when running xfstests on NOVA. I appreciate your > help very much. > > Some background: NOVA adopts a per-inode logging design. Metadata > changes are appended to the log and persisted before returning to

xfstests 344 deadlock on NOVA

Hi, I encounter a problem when running xfstests on NOVA. I appreciate your help very much. Some background: NOVA adopts a per-inode logging design. Metadata changes are appended to the log and persisted before returning to the user space. For example, a write() in NOVA works like this: Allocate

[PATCH 3/3] nfit_test: prevent parsing error of nfit_test.0

When you load nfit_test you currently see the following error in dmesg: nfit_test nfit_test.0: found a zero length table '0' parsing nfit This happens because when we parse the nfit_test.0 table via acpi_nfit_init(), we specify a size of nfit_test->nfit_size. For the first pass through

[PATCH 2/3] nfit_test: fix buffer overrun, add sanity check

It turns out that we were overrunning the 'nfit_buf' buffer in nfit_test0_setup() in the (t->setup_hotplug == 1) case because we failed to correctly account for all of the acpi_nfit_memory_map structures. Fix the structure count which will increase the allocation size of 'nfit_buf' in

[PATCH 1/3] nfit_test: improve structure offset handling

In nfit_test0_setup() and nfit_test1_setup() we keep an 'offset' value which we use to calculate where in our 'nfit_buf' we will place our next structure. The handling of 'offset' and the calculation of the placement of the next structure is a bit inconsistent, though. We don't update 'offset'

Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] xfs: reject removal of realtime flag when datadev doesn't support DAX

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 02/20/2018 04:23 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:15:24AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:01:09PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:23:17AM +1100,

Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] fs, dax: kill IS_DAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:48, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing the broken definition of S_DAX in the > CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, convert all the remaining > IS_DAX() usages to use explicit tests for FSDAX. > > Cc: Jan Kara > Cc: Matthew Wilcox

Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] mm, dax: replace IS_DAX() with IS_DEVDAX() or IS_FSDAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:42, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing the broken definition of S_DAX in the > CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, convert all IS_DAX() usages to > use explicit tests for the DEVDAX and FSDAX sub-cases of DAX > functionality. > > Cc: Jan Kara

Re: [PATCH v4 08/12] xfs, dax: replace IS_DAX() with IS_FSDAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:37, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing the broken definition of S_DAX in the > CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, convert all IS_DAX() usages to > use explicit tests for FSDAX since DAX is ambiguous. > > Cc: Jan Kara > Cc: "Darrick J. Wong"

Re: [PATCH v4 07/12] ext4, dax: replace IS_DAX() with IS_FSDAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:32, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing the broken definition of S_DAX in the > CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, convert all IS_DAX() usages to > use explicit tests for FSDAX since DAX is ambiguous. > > Cc: Jan Kara > Cc: "Theodore Ts'o"

Re: [PATCH v4 05/12] ext4, dax: define ext4_dax_*() infrastructure in all cases

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:21, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing S_DAX to be defined in the CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + > CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, move the definition of these routines outside of > the "#ifdef CONFIG_FS_DAX" guard. This is also a coding-style fix to > move all ifdef handling to

Re: [PATCH v4 06/12] ext2, dax: replace IS_DAX() with IS_FSDAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:27, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing the broken definition of S_DAX in the > CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, convert all IS_DAX() usages to > use explicit tests for FSDAX since DAX is ambiguous. > > Cc: Jan Kara > Cc: Matthew Wilcox

Re: [PATCH v4 04/12] ext2, dax: define ext2_dax_*() infrastructure in all cases

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:16, Dan Williams wrote: > In preparation for fixing S_DAX to be defined in the CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + > CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, move the definition of these routines outside of > the "#ifdef CONFIG_FS_DAX" guard. This is also a coding-style fix to > move all ifdef handling to

Re: [PATCH v4 02/12] dax: introduce IS_DEVDAX() and IS_FSDAX()

On Mon 26-02-18 20:20:05, Dan Williams wrote: > The current IS_DAX() helper that checks the S_DAX inode flag is > ambiguous, and currently has the broken assumption that the S_DAX flag I don't think S_DAX flag is really ambiguous. It is just that in CONFIG_FS_DAX=n + CONFIG_DEV_DAX=y case, the

Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] xfs: reject removal of realtime flag when datadev doesn't support DAX

On 02/20/2018 04:23 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:15:24AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:01:09PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:23:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:22:47AM -0800,