From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752479AbbDAIHJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 04:07:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:33900 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752276AbbDAIGx (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 04:06:53 -0400 Message-ID: <551BA719.7050609@plexistor.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:06:49 +0300 From: Boaz Harrosh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar , Dan Williams CC: Jens Axboe , linux-nvdimm , X86 ML , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-fsdevel , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant V2 References: <1427358764-6126-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <55143A8B.2060304@plexistor.com> <20150331092526.GA25958@lst.de> <551AB9C7.6020505@plexistor.com> <20150331161648.GA1318@lst.de> <20150331164456.GB8462@gmail.com> <20150331172458.GA3037@lst.de> <20150401075010.GA10694@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150401075010.GA10694@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: > > 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