Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754320AbbKQRFb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:05:31 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:38632 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751928AbbKQRF3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:05:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151117165645.GB91690@tevye.fc.hp.com> References: <20151116211011.GC10480@tevye.fc.hp.com> <20151117165645.GB91690@tevye.fc.hp.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:05:28 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] nvdimm: Add an IOCTL pass thru for DSM calls From: Dan Williams To: Jerry Hoemann 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" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2824 Lines: 68 On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jerry Hoemann wrote: > 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? Because there's no need for the intel vs passthru distinction, it's just yet another command. >> 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? I'm not ruling out the possibility that there may be a non-DSM command in the future, but I don't see any need for that on the horizon. Why would it matter? -- 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/