Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] xfs, dax: introduce IS_FSDAX()

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 23-02-18 16:43:27, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Given that S_DAX is non-zero in the FS_DAX=n + DEV_DAX=y case, another
>> mechanism besides the plain IS_DAX() check to compile out dead
>> filesystem-dax code paths. Without IS_FSDAX() xfs will fail at link time
>> with:
>>
>>     ERROR: "dax_finish_sync_fault" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
>>     ERROR: "dax_iomap_fault" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
>>     ERROR: "dax_iomap_rw" [fs/xfs/xfs.ko] undefined!
>>
>> This compile failure was previously hidden by the fact that S_DAX was
>> erroneously defined to '0' in the FS_DAX=n + DEV_DAX=y case.
>>
>> Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> As much as I appreciate that relying on compiler to optimize out dead
> branches results in nicer looking code this is an example where it
> backfires. Also having IS_DAX() and IS_FSDAX() doing almost the same, just
> not exactly the same, is IMHO a recipe for confusion (e.g. a casual reader
> could think why does ext4 get away with using IS_DAX while XFS has to use
> IS_FSDAX?). So I'd just prefer to handle this as is usual in other kernel
> areas - define empty stubs for all exported functions when CONFIG_FS_DAX is
> not enabled. That way code can stay without ugly ifdefs and we don't have
> to bother with IS_FSDAX vs IS_DAX distinction in filesystem code. Thoughts?
>

I think my patch is incomplete either way, because the current
IS_DAX() usages handle more than just compiling out calls to fs/dax.c
symbols. I.e. even if there were stubs for all fs/dax.c call outs call
there are still local usages of the helper. Lets kill IS_DAX() and
only have IS_FSDAX() and IS_DEVDAX() with the S_ISCHR() check. Any
issues with that?