From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant V2
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:06:49 +0300
Message-ID: <551BA719.7050609@plexistor.com>
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> <CAPcyv4it6iRrm6ABmu6j+ipan+DjNqu158x73VhiwT8k2tONQg@mail.gmail.com> <20150401075010.GA10694@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150401075010.GA10694@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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