On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:49 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy(a)infradead.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:13:46PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Internal to dax_unlock_mapping_entry(), dax_unlock_entry() is used to
> store a replacement entry in the Xarray at the given xas-index with the
> DAX_LOCKED bit clear. When called, dax_unlock_entry() expects the unlocked
> value of the entry relative to the current Xarray state to be specified.
> In most contexts dax_unlock_entry() is operating in the same scope as
> the matched dax_lock_entry(). However, in the dax_unlock_mapping_entry()
> case the implementation needs to recall the original entry. In the case
> where the original entry is a 'pmd' entry it is possible that the pfn
> performed to do the lookup is misaligned to the value retrieved in the
So far, dax_unlock_mapping_entry only has the one caller. I'd rather we
returned the 'entry' to the caller, then had them pass it back to the
unlock function. That matches the flow in the rest of DAX and doesn't
pose an undue burden to the caller.
I plan to reclaim the DAX_LOCK bit (and the DAX_EMPTY bit for that
matter), instead using a special DAX_LOCK value. DAX is almost free of
assumptions about the other bits in a locked entry, and this will remove
the assuption that there's a PMD bit in the entry.
How does this look?
Looks good to me, although can we make that cookie an actual type? I
think it's mostly ok to pass around (void *) for 'entry' inside of
fs/dax.c, but once an entry leaves that file I'd like it to have an
explicit type to catch people that might accidentally pass a (struct
page *) to the unlock routine.