Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932081AbbKQQ4z (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:56:55 -0500 Received: from g2t1383g.austin.hp.com ([15.217.136.92]:22561 "EHLO g2t1383g.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753044AbbKQQ4v (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:56:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:56:45 -0700 From: Jerry Hoemann To: Dan Williams Cc: Ross Zwisler , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" , jmoyer , Dmitry Krivenok , Linda Knippers , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Linux ACPI , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] nvdimm: Add an IOCTL pass thru for DSM calls Message-ID: <20151117165645.GB91690@tevye.fc.hp.com> Reply-To: Jerry.Hoemann@hpe.com References: <20151116211011.GC10480@tevye.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2625 Lines: 66 On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:29:41PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jerry Hoemann wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:00:20AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jerry Hoemann wrote: > >> > > >> ... > >> Let's not do the _intel vs _passthru split. I want to convert the > >> existing commands over to this new interface and deprecate the old > >> ioctl-command formats. I.e. it isn't the case that this will be a > >> always be a blind "passthru" mechanism, the kernel will need to crack > >> open this payload in some circumstances. > > > > > > I'm confused. > > > > In this version there is only 1 ioctl 'N'. The pass thru is using > > number 100. This is what I thought you wanted from prior comments. > > It is indeed, I like that change. > > > The split are for internal functions that deal specifically w/ > > the argument marshaling code and copy-in/copy-out. These mechanisms > > are different. > > > > I understand that you want to switch over, but don't you (at least for > > the time being) need to keep the old marshaling code for the current > > use case? I was assuming a sequence like: > > 1. The pass thru code gets submitted. > > 2. The current tools are converted over to using the pass thru, > > 3. The marshaling code using nd_cmd_in_size etc., would then > > be removed. > > > > Are you wanting to make one big change and not in separate steps? > > I want to do it in separate steps, I'd just like to see cmd number 100 > added to the existing __nd_ioctl and acpi_nfit_ctl routines. That Why? > plus quibbling about the name "ND_CMD_PASSTHRU". Given the plans to > eventually replace the existing commands we can call it something like > 'ND_DSM_GENERIC'. No problem. I'll change the name for ndn_passthru_pkg in a similar fashion. Question: Are you planning to add other CMDs to the IOCTL in the future? (eg. ones not directly related to calling _dsm?) Or, is the ultimate goal to have an IOCTL that supports only the generic DSM call? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett-Packard Enterprise ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/