On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 10:29 -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:19:28AM -0700, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 09:37 -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > The available_size attribute returns all the unused regions, but a > > > namespace has to use contiguous free regions. This patch uses the > > > attribute returning the largest capacity that can be created for > > > determining if the namespace can be created. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > ndctl/lib/libndctl.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > ndctl/lib/libndctl.sym | 1 + > > > ndctl/libndctl.h | 2 ++ > > > ndctl/namespace.c | 2 +- > > > 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > The patch looks good, but just a couple of 'meta' comments. > > 1. We typically send ndctl patches separately from kernel patches (i.e. > > not > > thraded together). > > 2. for ndctl patches, an 'ndctl PATCH' prefix is recommended. You can > > set a > > repo local config parameter for doing this automatically on git format- > > patch. > > git config format.subjectprefix "ndctl PATCH" > > > > I'm thinking the kernel changes will be queued for 4.19, which means > > the > > ndctl changes will go into v62. > > Thanks for the info. I'll make those changes for next time. > > I think I may need to send a v2 for this. Should we have this fall back > to > the available_size for the older kernels where the max_available_extents > attribute is not provided? I actually had that in my repo and used a > slightly older patch here, but I'm not sure if its okay to strongly > couple an ndctl release to a kernel version.
I was thinking that too. Typically we don't guarantee ndctl to work with old kernels, but this does seem like a bit of an invasive change. Dan, thoughts? _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
