* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 06:44:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> I'd be fine with that too - mind sending an updated series?
> >
> > I will send an updated one tonight or early tomorrow.
> >
> > Btw, do you want to keep the E820_PRAM name instead of E820_PMEM?
> > Seems like most people either don't care or prefer E820_PMEM. I'm
> > fine either way.
>
> FWIW, I like the idea of having a separate E820_PRAM name for
> type-12 memory vs future "can't yet disclose" UEFI memory type. The
> E820_PRAM type potentially has the property of being relegated to
> "legacy" NVDIMMs. We can later add E820_PMEM as a memory type that,
> for example, is not automatically backed by struct page. That said,
> I'm fine either way.
I agree that it's a minor detail, but I think the separation is
useful in two ways:
- We have a generic 'pmem' driver, but the low level, platform
specific RAM enumeration name does not use that name.
- 'E820_PRAM' is a more natural extension of 'E820_RAM'.
Later on we can then do a:
s/E820_PRAM/E820_LEGACY_PRAM
rename or so.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
