On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:02:54PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> Instead of all this complaining and moaning let's figure out what >> architecture you'd actually want. The one I had in mind is: >> >> +------------------------------+ >> | block layer (& partitions) | >> +---------------+--------------+--------------------+ >> | pmem driver | btt driver | other consumers | >> +---------------+--------------+--------------------+ >> | pmem API through libnvdimm | >> +---------------------------------------------------+ >> > > I've got this mostly coded up. The nice property is that BTTs now > become another flavor of the same namespace. This approach has grown on me since yesterday. I neglected to realize that we can carve out a BLK-mode namespace to be a BTT enabled log device if the need arises to satisfy what BTT on a partition was doing previously. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
