On 8/26/2015 6:00 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > 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. I don't see why we can't fix the names so they make sense now before there is hardware in the market. People doing testing and debugging look at stuff in /sys and they write their own scripts too, not necessarily in python. If they only make sense to someone using your library, I think we've missed the mark. Toshi is reacting to feedback we're getting from people are starting to test this stuff. -- ljk > -- > 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 > -- 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
