Re: [PATCH v6 00/21] libnvdimm: non-volatile memory devices

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Still not a big fan of the spec, but I guess this is a mosly reasonable
> implementation now.
>
> So for patches 1-16:
>
> Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

Thanks Christoph!

> The btt integration still needs a proper patch split and review, and

Ok, I'll split all the patches that are dependent on ->rw_bytes() to
their own series, and break out the introduction of ->rw_bytes() to be
patch1 of that series.

> I still detest the mess with the test moduly by heart.

The only remaining risk I see of merging this is that it requires
someone making changes to either the libnvdimm implementation or the
routines being mocked (ioremap, __request_region, etc...) to think
through the implications to the unit test.  That's a maintenance
burden given that mocked interfaces are deliberately working around
base assumptions.  At a minimum I need to document what rules the
__wrap_* routines in tools/testing/nvdimm/test/iomap.c are violating
and why.

I'm not convinced that the maintenance burden overshadows the benefit
of having this infrastructure readily available.  It is the primary
reason we've been able to iterate the code with confidence at this
velocity and magnitude of feedback.
--
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/