On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Ross Zwisler
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> My concern is whether flushing potentially invalid virtual
> is problematic on some architectures. Maybe it's just FUD, but it's
> less work in my opinion to just revalidate the address versus auditing
> each arch for this concern.
I don't think that the addresses have the potential of being invalid from the
driver's point of view - we are still holding a reference on the block queue
via dax_map_atomic(), so we should be protected against races vs block device
removal. I think the only question is whether it is okay to flush an address
that we know to be valid from the block device's point of view, but which the
filesystem may have truncated from being allocated to our inode.
Does that all make sense?
Yes, I was confusing which revalidation we were talking about. As
long as the dax_map_atomic() is there I don't think we need any