On 25/07/04 11:39AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 13:50:16 -0500 > John Groves <John@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This function should be called by fs-dax file systems after opening the > > devdax device. This adds holder_operations, which effects exclusivity > > between callers of fs_dax_get(). > > > > This function serves the same role as fs_dax_get_by_bdev(), which dax > > file systems call after opening the pmem block device. > > > > This also adds the CONFIG_DEV_DAX_IOMAP Kconfig parameter > > > > Signed-off-by: John Groves <john@xxxxxxxxxx> > Trivial stuff inline. > > > > --- > > drivers/dax/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ > > drivers/dax/super.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/dax.h | 5 +++++ > > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dax/Kconfig b/drivers/dax/Kconfig > > index d656e4c0eb84..ad19fa966b8b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dax/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/dax/Kconfig > > @@ -78,4 +78,10 @@ config DEV_DAX_KMEM > > > > Say N if unsure. > > > > +config DEV_DAX_IOMAP > > + depends on DEV_DAX && DAX > > + def_bool y > > + help > > + Support iomap mapping of devdax devices (for FS-DAX file > > + systems that reside on character /dev/dax devices) > > endif > > diff --git a/drivers/dax/super.c b/drivers/dax/super.c > > index e16d1d40d773..48bab9b5f341 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dax/super.c > > +++ b/drivers/dax/super.c > > @@ -122,6 +122,36 @@ void fs_put_dax(struct dax_device *dax_dev, void *holder) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_put_dax); > > #endif /* CONFIG_BLOCK && CONFIG_FS_DAX */ > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEV_DAX_IOMAP) > > +/** > > + * fs_dax_get() > > Trivial but from what I recall kernel-doc isn't going to like this. > Needs a short description. Right you are. I thought I'd checked all those, but missed this one. Queued to -next. > > > + * > > + * fs-dax file systems call this function to prepare to use a devdax device for > > + * fsdax. This is like fs_dax_get_by_bdev(), but the caller already has struct > > + * dev_dax (and there * is no bdev). The holder makes this exclusive. > > there is no *bdev? So * in wrong place. I think that's a line-break-refactor malfunction on my part. Aueued to -next. Thanks, John
