From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BDC021F6A6CB for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:14:01 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/15] xfs: require mmap lock for xfs_break_layouts() Message-ID: <20180319211401.GA5291@lst.de> References: <152112908134.24669.10222746224538377035.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <152112914933.24669.5543317105428477772.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180319173345.GF1757@magnolia> <20180319194513.GA3160@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Dan Williams Cc: Jan Kara , linux-nvdimm , "Darrick J. Wong" , Dave Chinner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-xfs , linux-fsdevel , Christoph Hellwig List-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:10:52PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:57:55AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> I don't see anything to adapt with respect to mmap locks since reflink > >> and dax are mutually exclusive. > > > > For now. I'll change that pretty soon. > > Right, so which patch set will be staged first? This one or the one > that causes us to consider reflink vs dax locking? Given that I haven't even posted the reflink+DAX support (not fixed all issues with it) I'm pretty sure you'll be faster :) _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm