On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:14:04AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
The use case that we have now is distinguishing volatile vs
memory (brd vs pmem).
brd is a development tool, so until we have other reasons for this
abstraction (which I'm pretty sure will show up rather sooner than later)
I would not worry about it too much.
I took a look at mtd layering approach and the main difference is
layers above the block layer do not appear to know anything about mtd
Or the block layer itself for that matter. And that's exactly where
I want DAX to be in the future.
For fs/dax.c we currently need some path to retrieve a dax
anchor object through the block device.
We have a need to retreiver the anchor object. We currently do it
though the block layer for historical reasons, but it doesn't have
to be that way.
> In the longer run I like your dax_operations, but they need to
> separate from the block layer.
I'll move them from block_device_operations to dax data hanging off of
the bdev_inode, or is there a better way to go from bdev-to-dax?
I don't think that's any better. What we really want is a way
to find the underlying persistent memory / DAX / whatever we call
it node without going through a block device. E.g. a library function
to give that object for a given path name, where the path name could
be either that of the /dev/pmemN or the /dev/daxN device.
If the file system for now still needs a block device as well it
will only accept the /dev/pmemN name, and open both the low-level
pmem device and the block device. Once that file system doesn't
need block code (and I think we could do that easily for XFS,
nevermind any new FS) it won't have to deal with the block
device at all.
pmem.c then becomes a consumer of the dax_ops just like the file system.