| Message ID | 20190924114327.14700-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 4c806b897d6075bfa5067e524fb058c57ab64e7b |
| Headers | show |
| Series | libnvdimm/region: Update is_nvdimm_sync check to handle volatile regions | expand |
> > We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to > OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a > ramdisk > as pmem dimms. > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c > index ab91890f2486..ef423ba1a711 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c > @@ -1168,6 +1168,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvdimm_has_cache); > > bool is_nvdimm_sync(struct nd_region *nd_region) > { > + if (is_nd_volatile(&nd_region->dev)) > + return true; > + > return is_nd_pmem(&nd_region->dev) && > !test_bit(ND_REGION_ASYNC, &nd_region->flags); > } > -- > 2.21.0 Reviewed-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm >
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:43 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to > OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a ramdisk > as pmem dimms. We have a hard time understanding what agent is being referenced when we use "we" in a patch changelog. We would prefer that we consider not using "we" in favor of explicitly named agents, or otherwise review the changelog to make sure that "we" is clearly discernable. We will fix it up this time when applying, but we hope we have made it clear how confusing liberal use of "we" can be.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:43 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V > <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to > > OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a ramdisk > > as pmem dimms. > > We have a hard time understanding what agent is being referenced when > we use "we" in a patch changelog. We would prefer that we consider not > using "we" in favor of explicitly named agents, or otherwise review > the changelog to make sure that "we" is clearly discernable. We will > fix it up this time when applying, but we hope we have made it clear > how confusing liberal use of "we" can be. To be clear, I'm not strictly opposed to using "we" when it is established which we is being referred and stays constant throughout the description. This instance caught my eye again because the first couple "we"s seems to be the kernel, and the last we seems to be a user platform configuration.
Hi Dan, On 9/24/19 10:42 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:43 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V >> <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to >>> OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a ramdisk >>> as pmem dimms. >> >> We have a hard time understanding what agent is being referenced when >> we use "we" in a patch changelog. We would prefer that we consider not >> using "we" in favor of explicitly named agents, or otherwise review >> the changelog to make sure that "we" is clearly discernable. We will >> fix it up this time when applying, but we hope we have made it clear >> how confusing liberal use of "we" can be. > > To be clear, I'm not strictly opposed to using "we" when it is > established which we is being referred and stays constant throughout > the description. This instance caught my eye again because the first > couple "we"s seems to be the kernel, and the last we seems to be a > user platform configuration. > Thanks for the feedback. I will take extra care to clearly indicate the component/agent next time. Thanks for taking the patch. -aneesh
diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c index ab91890f2486..ef423ba1a711 100644 --- a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c @@ -1168,6 +1168,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvdimm_has_cache); bool is_nvdimm_sync(struct nd_region *nd_region) { + if (is_nd_volatile(&nd_region->dev)) + return true; + return is_nd_pmem(&nd_region->dev) && !test_bit(ND_REGION_ASYNC, &nd_region->flags); }
We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a ramdisk as pmem dimms. Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> --- drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)