Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:50:10 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant V2 |
| |
* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 06:44:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> I'd be fine with that too - mind sending an updated series? > > > > I will send an updated one tonight or early tomorrow. > > > > Btw, do you want to keep the E820_PRAM name instead of E820_PMEM? > > Seems like most people either don't care or prefer E820_PMEM. I'm > > fine either way. > > FWIW, I like the idea of having a separate E820_PRAM name for > type-12 memory vs future "can't yet disclose" UEFI memory type. The > E820_PRAM type potentially has the property of being relegated to > "legacy" NVDIMMs. We can later add E820_PMEM as a memory type that, > for example, is not automatically backed by struct page. That said, > I'm fine either way.
I agree that it's a minor detail, but I think the separation is useful in two ways:
- We have a generic 'pmem' driver, but the low level, platform specific RAM enumeration name does not use that name.
- 'E820_PRAM' is a more natural extension of 'E820_RAM'.
Later on we can then do a:
s/E820_PRAM/E820_LEGACY_PRAM
rename or so.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |