Re: [PATCH 3/6] pmem: pmem_dax_direct_access() to honor the DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY flag
From: Jane Chu <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-21 18:24:29
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel, lkml, nvdimm
From: Jane Chu <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-21 18:24:29
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel, lkml, nvdimm
On 10/21/2021 4:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:10:56PM -0600, Jane Chu wrote:quoted
- if (unlikely(is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512, - PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))) + if (unlikely(!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) && + is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512, + PFN_PHYS(nr_pages))))The indentation here is pretty messed up. Something like this would be move normal: if (unlikely(!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) && is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512, PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))) {
Will do.
but if we don't really need the unlikely we could do an actually readable variant: if (!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) && is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512, PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))
'unlikely' is needed because 'RWF_RECOVERY_DATA' flag is not recommended for normal preadv2/pwritev2 usage, it's recommended only if user is aware of or suspect poison in the range. thanks, -jane