[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250904131929.rcithhcixbwqxyss@test-PowerEdge-R740xd>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 18:50:23 +0530
From: Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com,
a.manzanares@...sung.com, vishak.g@...sung.com, neeraj.kernel@...il.com,
cpgs@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/20] nvdimm/label: Introduce NDD_CXL_LABEL flag to
set cxl label format
On 13/08/25 02:12PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 17:41:50 +0530
>Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com> wrote:
>
>> Prior to LSA 2.1 version, LSA contain only namespace labels. LSA 2.1
>> introduced in CXL 2.0 Spec, which contain region label along with
>> namespace label.
>>
>> NDD_LABELING flag is used for namespace. Introduced NDD_CXL_LABEL
>> flag for region label. Based on these flags nvdimm driver performs
>> operation on namespace label or region label.
>>
>> NDD_CXL_LABEL will be utilized by cxl driver to enable LSA2.1 region
>> label support
>>
>> Accordingly updated label index version
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Kumar <s.neeraj@...sung.com>
>Hi Neeraj,
>
>A few comments inline.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> index 04f4a049599a..7a011ee02d79 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c
>> @@ -688,11 +688,25 @@ static int nd_label_write_index(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, int index, u32 seq,
>> - (unsigned long) to_namespace_index(ndd, 0);
>> nsindex->labeloff = __cpu_to_le64(offset);
>> nsindex->nslot = __cpu_to_le32(nslot);
>> - nsindex->major = __cpu_to_le16(1);
>> - if (sizeof_namespace_label(ndd) < 256)
>> +
>> + /* Set LSA Label Index Version */
>> + if (ndd->cxl) {
>> + /* CXL r3.2 Spec: Table 9-9 Label Index Block Layout */
>> + nsindex->major = __cpu_to_le16(2);
>> nsindex->minor = __cpu_to_le16(1);
>> - else
>> - nsindex->minor = __cpu_to_le16(2);
>> + } else {
>> + nsindex->major = __cpu_to_le16(1);
>> + /*
>> + * NVDIMM Namespace Specification
>> + * Table 2: Namespace Label Index Block Fields
>> + */
>> + if (sizeof_namespace_label(ndd) < 256)
>> + nsindex->minor = __cpu_to_le16(1);
>> + else
>> + /* UEFI Specification 2.7: Label Index Block Definitions */
>
>Odd comment alignment. Either put it on the else so
> else /* UEFI 2.7: Label Index Block Defintions */
>
>or indent it an extra tab
>
> else
> /* UEFI 2.7: Label Index Block Definitions */
>
Thanks Jonathan, I will fix it in next patch-set
>> + nsindex->minor = __cpu_to_le16(2);
>> + }
>> +
>> nsindex->checksum = __cpu_to_le64(0);
>> if (flags & ND_NSINDEX_INIT) {
>> unsigned long *free = (unsigned long *) nsindex->free;
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>> index e772aae71843..0a55900842c8 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>> @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ enum {
>> /* dimm provider wants synchronous registration by __nvdimm_create() */
>> NDD_REGISTER_SYNC = 8,
>>
>> + /* dimm supports region labels (LSA Format 2.1) */
>> + NDD_CXL_LABEL = 9,
>
>This enum is 'curious'. It combined flags from a bunch of different
>flags fields and some stuff that are nothing to do with flags.
>
>Anyhow, putting that aside I'd either rename it to something like
>NDD_REGION_LABELING (similar to NDD_LABELING that is there for namespace labels
>or just have it a meaning it is LSA Format 2.1 and drop the fact htat
>also means region labels are supported.
>
>Combination of a comment that talks about one thing and a definition name
>that doesn't associate with it seems confusing to me.
>
>Jonathan
>
Sure, I will rename it in next patch-set
Regards,
Neeraj
>
>> +
>> /* need to set a limit somewhere, but yes, this is likely overkill */
>> ND_IOCTL_MAX_BUFLEN = SZ_4M,
>> ND_CMD_MAX_ELEM = 5,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists