Re: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant V2

[Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>]

On 04/01/2015 10:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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.

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.

Thanks
Boaz