On 04/01/2015 10:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. If Dan does not like E820_PMEM. Than please let us just call it E820_PMEM_LEGACY right from the let go. But PRAM is exactly not very good because it is similar to RAM. Thanks Boaz -- 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
