On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > That said, I'm not opposed to looking at something like Python-binding for libndctl to make scripting easier. -- 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
