From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:00:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20150617235602.12943.24958.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20150621101346.GF5915@lst.de> <20150621135406.GA9572@lst.de> <20150622063028.GA30434@lst.de> <20150622072844.GA31263@lst.de> <20150622154138.GC7952@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Dan Williams , Jens Axboe , "linux-nvdimm\@lists.01.org" , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Linux ACPI , linux-fsdevel , Ingo Molnar To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150622154138.GC7952@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:41:38 +0200") Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:02:24AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Agreed, we can't audit all code, and springing this potential data >> corruptor on people seems irresponsible. > > How do "the people" know they'd have to use btt in the current setup > without auditing their stack first? Right now, the guidance should be to always use btt since there are no applications that are directly taking advantage of persistent memory (that I know). I expect documentation would take care of that. I also expect that, as applications add support, they would note the requirement for dax mountpoints in their documentation. So, "the people" find out the same way they always have. :) Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in