On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:55:47AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > - stong NAK for the linker wrapping abuse in the test module > > This capability has been our single largest generator of bug fixes and > regression prevention. Please tell me you have a non-bikeshed > argument why this test approach must die? We need more tests in tree, > not less. That said, it's at the end of the series ready to be lopped > off like a spent booster rocket if it's really a blocker.
No - you're overloading general functionality to go to something much slower, with locking implications etc totally invisible to someone reading the code. I could be persuaded that a test module makes sense if you make it an explicit opt-in at the source code level, e.g. a version of a the pmem driver that needs to be explicitly loaded. Then again I really don't see the point - if you already need a VM with ACPI / EFI tables to claim that you have pmem support you might as well do the pmem emulation in that same virtualŃ–zation environment. > It makes the identifier prefixes shorter is the bulk of the reasoning > and a hardware memory resource need not always be a "dimm". If it's > just the top-level directory I'm fine with 'nvdimm' or are you looking > for a rename throughout? That's the most important part. -- 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/
