Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:56:45 -0700 | From | Jerry Hoemann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] nvdimm: Add an IOCTL pass thru for DSM calls |
| |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:29:41PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@hpe.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:00:20AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@hpe.com> wrote: > >> > > >>
...
> >> Let's not do the _intel vs _passthru split. I want to convert the > >> existing commands over to this new interface and deprecate the old > >> ioctl-command formats. I.e. it isn't the case that this will be a > >> always be a blind "passthru" mechanism, the kernel will need to crack > >> open this payload in some circumstances. > > > > > > I'm confused. > > > > In this version there is only 1 ioctl 'N'. The pass thru is using > > number 100. This is what I thought you wanted from prior comments. > > It is indeed, I like that change. > > > The split are for internal functions that deal specifically w/ > > the argument marshaling code and copy-in/copy-out. These mechanisms > > are different. > > > > I understand that you want to switch over, but don't you (at least for > > the time being) need to keep the old marshaling code for the current > > use case? I was assuming a sequence like: > > 1. The pass thru code gets submitted. > > 2. The current tools are converted over to using the pass thru, > > 3. The marshaling code using nd_cmd_in_size etc., would then > > be removed. > > > > Are you wanting to make one big change and not in separate steps? > > I want to do it in separate steps, I'd just like to see cmd number 100 > added to the existing __nd_ioctl and acpi_nfit_ctl routines. That
Why?
> plus quibbling about the name "ND_CMD_PASSTHRU". Given the plans to > eventually replace the existing commands we can call it something like > 'ND_DSM_GENERIC'.
No problem. I'll change the name for ndn_passthru_pkg in a similar fashion.
Question: Are you planning to add other CMDs to the IOCTL in the future? (eg. ones not directly related to calling _dsm?)
Or, is the ultimate goal to have an IOCTL that supports only the generic DSM call?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett-Packard Enterprise -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |