Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:48:03AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >>>> Only if you abandon BTT on partitions, which at this point it seems >>>> you're boldly committed to doing. It's unacceptable to drop BTT on >>>> the floor so I'll take a look at making BTT per-disk only for 4.2. >>> >>> If by partitions you mean block layer partitions: yes. If by partitions >>> you mean subdivision of nvdimms: no. >> >> How will this subdivision be recorded? Not all NVDIMMs support the >> label specification. > > ...and the ones that do only use labels for resolving aliasing, not > partitioning. > >> Sysadmins are already familiar with partitions; I'm not sure why we'd >> deviate from that here. What am I missing? > > I don't see the need to re-invent partitioning which is the path this > requested rework is putting us on... > > However, when the need arises for smaller granularity BTT we can have > the partition fight then. To be clear, I believe that need is already > here today, but I'm not in a position to push that agenda at this late > date. The xfs example is enough to convince me that we need to support btt on a partition right now. Otherwise, for RHEL at least, dax on xfs simply won't be supported. -Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
