On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> If you try to combine the two, it's not clear what state you're getting
>> because it's not obvious from ndctl whether it's static or dynamic data.
>> I believe that's why you correctly didn't call the state flags "health"
>> data.
>
> True, ok, we do already have the distinction that the "health"
> sub-object is live data. So how about a middle ground? For the live
> detail flags that indicate the similar data as the static health-state
> flags from the NFIT let call them the same name. So it would look like
> this:
>
> {
> "dev":"nmem0",
> "health":{
> "flag_failed_arm":true,
> }
> }
>
> Where a monitor application can see that we started with the DIMM
> armed and it went unarmed, but it only ever needs to worry about one
> key name for the "armed" state.
...and to be clear the reverse case (failed at boot, but later becomes
armed) would look like this:
{
"dev":"nmem0",
"flag_failed_arm":true,
"health":{
"flag_failed_arm":false,
}
}
Where, we need to emit the updated flag in the live "health" case
because it is now different than the boot state.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
