Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] block: Add bdev_supports_dax() for dax mount checks

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:23:03AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  :
> >> > +int bdev_supports_dax(struct super_block *sb, int blocksize)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       struct blk_dax_ctl dax = {
> >> > +               .sector = 0,
> >> > +               .size = PAGE_SIZE,
> >> > +       };
> >> > +       int err;
> >> > +
> >> > +       if (blocksize != PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> > +               vfs_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "error: unsupported blocksize for
> >> > dax");
> >> > +               return -EINVAL;
> >> > +       }
> >> > +
> >> > +       err = bdev_direct_access(sb->s_bdev, &dax);
> >> > +       if (err < 0) {
> >> > +               switch (err) {
> >> > +               case -EOPNOTSUPP:
> >> > +                       vfs_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
> >> > +                               "error: device does not support dax");
> >> > +                       break;
> >> > +               case -EINVAL:
> >> > +                       vfs_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
> >> > +                               "error: unaligned partition for dax");
> >> > +                       break;
> >> > +               default:
> >> > +                       vfs_msg(sb, KERN_ERR,
> >> > +                               "error: dax access failed (%d)", err);
> >> > +               }
> >> > +               return err;
> >> > +       }
> >> > +
> >> > +       return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bdev_supports_dax);
> >>
> >> This patch should replace blkdev_dax_capable(), or just reuse that
> >> existing routine, or am I missing something?
> >
> > Good question.  bdev_supports_dax() is a helper function tailored for the
> > filesystem's mount -o dax case.  While blkdev_dax_capable() is similar, it
> > does not need error messages like "device does not support dax" since it
> > implicitly enables dax when capable.  So, I think we can keep
> > blkdev_dax_capable(), but change it to call bdev_direct_access() so that
> > actual check is performed in a single place.
> 
> Sounds good to me.

Can you name them consistently then? i.e. blkdev_dax_supported() and
blkdev_dax_capable()?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx