[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant V2
On 04/01/2015 10:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dan Williams <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <> 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:
> rename or so.

If Dan does not like E820_PMEM. Than please let us just call it
E820_PMEM_LEGACY right from the let go. But PRAM is exactly not very
good because it is similar to RAM.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-01 10:41    [W:0.060 / U:2.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site