On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:11 PM, hch@xxxxxx <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:08:54PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> [ adding Jeff, and Johannes ] >> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 17:07 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> [..] >> >> We have symlinks in /dev/disk/by* to make it easier to identify >> >> storage devices, I think it makes sense to add udev rules for >> >> identifying volatile pmem and not try to differentiate this in the >> >> default kernel device name. >> > >> > I am not sure what might be a good way, but I am concerned because a >> > single block device naming do not represent both volatile and >> > persistent media today. >> >> We do have time to changes this if we find out this is critical. Maybe >> it's best to ask Linux distro folks what would be easier for them? > > I'm not really concerned about it, because SCSI devices for example > might not be persistent as well with ѕcsi_debug, target_core_rd or > volatile qemu devices. > > That being said I really don't understand the purpose of these volatile > nfit ranges. Are they seen in the wild? If yes what's the use case? > If not why do we even need to support them? The main use case is provisioning install media for bare metal servers. Traditionally that's been handled by having the BMC emulate a USB CD drive. Unfortunately, most BMCs have limited CPU, limited memory and a wet-string network connection so a host based alternative is nice to have.
