Re: [PATCH 16/25] device-dax: use the dev_pagemap internal refcount
From: Dan Williams
Date: Fri Jun 28 2019 - 13:10:26 EST
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > The functionality is identical to the one currently open coded in
> > > > > device-dax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > drivers/dax/dax-private.h | 4 ----
> > > > > drivers/dax/device.c | 43 ---------------------------------------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you want
> > > > to ack/test any further?
> > > >
> > > > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window.
> > >
> > > I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with Ira's
> > > patch before testing the final result again . You can go ahead and
> > > add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on the
> > > final state of the series.
> > The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus
> > resolve it.
> Andrew's tree effectively always rebases since it's a quilt series.
> I'd recommend pulling Ira's patch out of -mm and applying it with the
> rest of hmm reworks. Any other git tree I'd agree with just doing the
> late conflict resolution, but I'm not clear on what's the best
> practice when conflicting with -mm.
Regardless the patch is buggy. If you want to do the conflict
resolution it should be because the DEVICE_PUBLIC removal effectively
does the same fix otherwise we're knowingly leaving a broken point in