On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:56:17PM +0000, Zuckerman, Boris wrote: > To work with persistent memory as efficiently as we can work with RAM we need > a bit more than "commit". It's reasonable to expect that we get some > additional support from CPUs that goes beyond mfence and mflush. That may > include discovery, transactional support, etc. Encapsulating that in a > special class sooner than later seams a right thing to do...
If it's something CPU-specific, then we wouldn't handle it as part of the "class", we'd handle it as an architecture abstraction. It's only operations which are device-specific which would need to be exposed through an operations vector. For example, suppose you buy one device from IBM and another device from HP, and plug them both into your SPARC system. The code you compile needs to run on SPARC, doing whatever CPU operations are supported, but if HP and IBM have different ways of handling a "commit" operation, we need that operation to be part of an operations vector. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
