From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1030936AbbD1VFb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:05:31 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:32815 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S965926AbbD1VFa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:05:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h3w2V6iNDbwddQzrV+jdT06m28O1_H6cj7y2B9i1gZTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150428181203.35812.60474.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20150428182417.35812.92834.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CALCETrWq4NYqYomAVDZB6NBheLp-zA6yJXmcN244skYweAGaBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPcyv4h3w2V6iNDbwddQzrV+jdT06m28O1_H6cj7y2B9i1gZTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:05:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrXFZrP6YnUQ7ydV3NraRupbCzHB8s=QGqYGCLT8CZNwGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] e820, efi: add ACPI 6.0 persistent memory types
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
>>> index 11cc7d54ec3f..d38b53a7e9b2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
>>> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type)
>>>         case E820_UNUSABLE:
>>>                 printk(KERN_CONT "unusable");
>>>                 break;
>>> +       case E820_PMEM:
>>>         case E820_PRAM:
>>>                 printk(KERN_CONT "persistent (type %u)", type);
>>>                 break;
>>
>> I'd kind of like to make it more clear what's going on here.  It
>> doesn't help that the spec chose poor names.
>>
>> How about "NVDIMM physical aperture" for E820_PMEM and "legacy
>> persistent RAM" for E820_PRAM?
>
> The term "aperture" to me implies this BLK (mmio-windowed) mode of
> accessing persistent media that the NFIT specification introduces.  In
> fact, those ranges are mapped E820_RESERVED.  E820_PMEM really is a
> memory range that happens to be persistent.

Oh, I missed that.  Yuck.  What happens when you repartition one of
these things?  (Can you even do that?)

>
>> Otherwise this looks generaly sensible, although I don't really
>> understand why e820_type_to_string and e820_print_type are different.
>
>  e820_type_to_string() appears in /proc/iomem and seems to afford
> being more descriptive than e820_print_type() that just scrolls by in
> dmesg, but I'm just guessing.

Can we change that?

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC