Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754772AbbKRHBi (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:01:38 -0500 Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:34709 "EHLO g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752098AbbKRHBg (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:01:36 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 50686 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:01:36 EST Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:01:32 -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: <20151118070132.GA118986@tevye.fc.hp.com> Reply-To: Jerry.Hoemann@hpe.com References: <20151116211011.GC10480@tevye.fc.hp.com> <20151117165645.GB91690@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: 3016 Lines: 75 On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:05:28AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > 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: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > ... > > > >> 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. Yes and no. The way the two marshal their arguments in prep for the copy in/copy out is different and are not compatible. Also, the existing upstream acpi_nfit_ctl does multiple things that we don't want done in the "semi" passthru case. To accomodate these differences, I implemented in separate functions. I can merge the functions together, it will not be clean. This approach also creates testing issues I didn't have previously. I was confident w/ code inspection that I wasn't breaking the existing usage case. I will need your help in testing on hardware that I don't have access to. You expressed a desire to depricate the existing ioctl commands and transition to the semi passthru structure. What do you anticipate that code looking like? > > >> 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? Neither the existing upstream apci_nfit_ctl nor the semi pass thru marshal arguments in a traditional straight forward manner. So likely the marshaling code for any new commands would be different. Also, since it doesn't call DSM it wouldn't be doing the evaluate dsm. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/