On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:40:26 -0400 Jeff Moyer <jmo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:53:07 +1000 > > Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm thinking about it, I wonder what "bytes remaining" mean in pmem context > >> in the context of a machine check exception. Also, do we want to be byte > >> accurate or cache-line accurate for the bytes remaining? The former is much > >> easier than the latter :) > > > > The ideal would be a linear measure of how much of your copy reached > > (or can reach) non-volatile storage with nothing further copied. You > > may have to allow for some relaxing of the semantics depending on > > what the architecture can support. > > I think you've got that backwards. memcpy_mcsafe is used to copy *from* > persistent memory. The idea is to catch errors when reading pmem, not > writing to it. > > > What's the problem with just counting bytes copied like usercopy -- > > why is that harder than cacheline accuracy? > > He said the former (i.e. bytes) is easier. So, I think you're on the > same page. :) Oh well that makes a lot more sense in my mind now, thanks :)
