* Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> 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
On 04/01/2015 10:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> 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