[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1440625466.14237.62.camel@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:44:26 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <elliott@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: acpica/nfit: Rename not-armed bit definition
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:30 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 10:16 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> > > > ACPI 6.0 NFIT Memory Device State Flags in Table 5-129 defines
> > > > bit 3 as follows.
> > > >
> > > > Bit [3] set to 1 to indicate that the Memory Device is observed
> > > > to be not armed prior to OSPM hand off. A Memory Device is
> > > > considered armed if it is able to accept persistent writes.
> > > >
> > > > This bit is currently defined as ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED, which can be
> > > > confusing as if the Memory Device is armed when this bit is set.
> > > >
> > > > Change the name to ACPI_NFIT_MEM_NOT_ARMED per the spec.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
> > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 6 +++---
> > > > drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 2 +-
> > > > include/acpi/actbl1.h | 2 +-
> > >
> > > This file "include/acpi/actbl1.h" is owned by the ACPICA project so
> > > any changes need to come through them. But that said, I'm not sure we
> > > need friendly names at this level.
> >
> > I think the name is misleading, but I agree with the process and this
> > patch2
> > can be dropped. It'd be nice if the ACPICA project can pick it up later
> > when they have a chance, though.
> >
> > > What I usually say about sysfs name changes to be more human friendly
> > > is "sysfs is not a UI", i.e. it's not necessarily meant to be user
> > > friendly. As long as the names for the flags are distinct then
> > > wrapping descriptive / accurate names around them is the role of
> > > libndctl and userspace management software.
> > >
> > > Similar feedback for patch1 in the sense that I don't think we need to
> > > update the sysfs naming. For example the API to retrieve the state of
> > > the "arm" flag in libndctl is ndctl_dimm_failed_arm().
> >
> > I agree that we do not want to change sysfs API for friendliness, and I
> > understand that libndctl already consumes the strings... But I think
> > they
> > can be confusing for the long run, i.e. the flags is likely extended for
> > additional info, and more people may be looking at sysfs for the state.
> > It'd be a lot harder to change them later.
>
> The starting premise though is that this will be nicer for scripts
> that want to avoid the library. Properly handling the async device
> registration semantics of the libnvdimm-sysfs interface is hard to get
> right in a script. I'm trying my best to discourage raw use of sysfs
> for this reason. Small fixes to the names of flags seems to miss this
> wider point.
Okay, I guess I will have to jump on the bandwagon and discourage people to
look at sysfs... ;-P
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
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