On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:30 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines > > > > bit 3 as follows. > > > > > > > > Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed > > > > to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is > > > > considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes. > > > > > > > > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be > > > > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set. > > > > > > > > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 6 +++--- > > > > drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 2 +- > > > > include/acpi/actbl1.h | 2 +- > > > > > > This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so > > > any changes need to come through them. But that said, I'm not sure we > > > need friendly names at this level. > > > > I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this > > patch2 > > can be dropped. It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it up later > > when they have a chance, though. > > > > > What I usually say about sysfs name changes to be more human friendly > > > is "sysfs is not a UI", i.e. it's not necessarily meant to be user > > > friendly. As long as the names for the flags are distinct then > > > wrapping descriptive / accurate names around them is the role of > > > libndctl and userspace management software. > > > > > > Similar feedback for patch1 in the sense that I don't think we need to > > > update the sysfs naming. For example the API to retrieve the state of > > > the "arm" flag in libndctl is ndctl_dimm_failed_arm(). > > > > I agree that we do not want to change sysfs API for friendliness, and I > > understand that libndctl already consumes the strings... But I think > > they > > can be confusing for the long run, i.e. the flags is likely extended for > > additional info, and more people may be looking at sysfs for the state. > > It'd be a lot harder to change them later. > > The starting premise though is that this will be nicer for scripts > that want to avoid the library. Properly handling the async device > registration semantics of the libnvdimm-sysfs interface is hard to get > right in a script. I'm trying my best to discourage raw use of sysfs > for this reason. Small fixes to the names of flags seems to miss this > wider point. Okay, I guess I will have to jump on the bandwagon and discourage people to look at sysfs... ;-P Thanks, -Toshi -- 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
