Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:55:47AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >  - stong NAK for the linker wrapping abuse in the test module
> 
> This capability has been our single largest generator of bug fixes and
> regression prevention.  Please tell me you have a non-bikeshed
> argument why this test approach must die?  We need more tests in tree,
> not less.  That said, it's at the end of the series ready to be lopped
> off like a spent booster rocket if it's really a blocker.

No - you're overloading general functionality to go to something much
slower, with locking implications etc totally invisible to someone reading
the code.  I could be persuaded that a test module makes sense if you
make it an explicit opt-in at the source code level, e.g. a version
of a the pmem driver that needs to be explicitly loaded.

Then again I really don't see the point - if you already need a VM with
ACPI / EFI tables to claim that you have pmem support you might as well
do the pmem emulation in that same virtualÑzation environment.

> It makes the identifier prefixes shorter is the bulk of the reasoning
> and a hardware memory resource need not always be a "dimm".  If it's
> just the top-level directory I'm fine with 'nvdimm' or are you looking
> for a rename throughout?

That's the most important part.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/