[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iN0BmipDfrsoCg2N2KnhX0+Hz2-ghr1i0H4US+bFe+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:04:02 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
david <david@...morbit.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] libnvdimm, e820: make CONFIG_X86_PMEM_LEGACY a
tristate option
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 08:28:35AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> I'm not grokking the argument against allowing this functionality to
>> be modular.
>
> You're adding a another layer of platform_devices just to make a tivially
> small piece of code modular so that you can hook into it. I don't think
> that's a good reason, and neither is the after thought of preventing
> potentially future buggy firmware.
What other layer? /sys/devices/platform/e820_pmem is that exact same
device we had before this patch. We just have a proper driver for it
now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists