Message-ID: <1457481844.15454.510.camel@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2-UPDATE2 3/4] resource: Add device-managed
 insert/remove_resource()
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:04:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4i2GwujqK=MDJpSKhvufJprmCV4vmQRpS_UP-n1kau+mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1457460530-17959-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
	 <CA+55aFy=V-esUXZa2AogS685k+r9PyyNStkZrrUUkWSKvLFUGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAPcyv4gT1RvnEquYXVo7sZscdUrkiWpG-Yvr_EX4=L25397X0g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CA+55aFxPn3J68MsqQd7OVv7jetZjPduP53MFmw2f_-z7=ebpXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAPcyv4i2GwujqK=MDJpSKhvufJprmCV4vmQRpS_UP-n1kau+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1616
Lines: 38

On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 14:44 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Here's the usage patch from Toshi [1] (copied below).  It is indeed a
> > > resource injected by nfit / nvdimm bus implementation.  We just
> > > happen
> > > to support nfit and libnvdimm as modules.
> > > 
> > > The goal of these patches is to use the ACPI NFIT data to create a
> > > "Persistent Memory" rather than "reserved" resource.  This is for
> > > platform-firmware implementations that use E820-Type2 rather than
> > > E820-Type7 to describe pmem.
> > 
> > So my worry is that there is likely exactly one or two of these kinds
> > of sites.
> > 
> > Why couldn't they just use insert_resource() and then remove it
> > manually?
> 
> You mean instead of introducing a devm_insert_resource() as a helpful
> first-class-citizen api, just arrange for the resource to be inserted
> locally?  Sure.
> 
> I assume Toshi was looking to keep the devm semantics like the rest of
> the nfit driver, but we can do that locally with devm_add_action() and
> skip the new general purpose api.

Yes, I prefer the devm semantics.  insert_resource() and remove_resource()
are not exported interfaces.  So, with devm_add_action(), we still need to
introduce built-in exported wrappers for insert/remove_resource(), unless
we change to export them directly.  Since we need to export "something", I
think it is better to export their devm interfaces.

Thanks,
-Toshi