On 02/19/2015 12:01 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:15:32AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >>>> In fact it was originally "type-6" until ACPI 5 >>>> claimed that number for official use, so these >>>> platforms, with early proof-of-concept nvdimm support, >>>> have already gone through one transition to a new >>>> number. They need to do the same once an official >>>> number for nvdimm support is published. >>>> >>>> Put another way, these early platforms are already >>>> using out-of-tree patches for nvdimm enabling. They >>>> can continue to do so, or switch to standard methods >>>> when the standard is published. >>> >>> Not supporting hardware that is widely avaiable (I have >>> some, too) is not very user friendly. >> >> Yes, as I agreed with Ingo, allowing a driver to assume >> control of an unknown memory type with a warning or a >> kernel taint seems fine. > > If someone cooks up such a patch I can apply it. > > Thanks, > > Ingo >
I will submit a new version of my patch-1 with the pr_warn. Or did you already apply my patch-1 and you want one on top? What is the URL of your tree please? Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
