lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 00/27] Add support for OpenCAPI SCM devices
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:43 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:01:17PM +1100, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 19:50 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:46:28PM +1100, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > > This series adds support for OpenCAPI SCM devices, exposing
> > >
> > > Could we _not_ introduce yet another term for persistent memory?
> > >
> >
> > "Storage Class Memory" is an industry wide term, and is used repeatedly
> > in the device specifications. It's not something that has been pulled
> > out of thin air.
>
> "Somebody else also wrote down Storage Class Memory". Don't care.
> Google gets 750k hits for Persistent Memory and 150k hits for
> Storage Class Memory. This term lost.
>
> > The term is also already in use within the 'papr_scm' driver.
>
> The acronym "SCM" is already in use. Socket Control Messages go back
> to early Unix (SCM_RIGHTS, SCM_CREDENTIALS, etc). Really, you're just
> making the case that IBM already uses the term SCM. You should stop.

I tend to agree. The naming of things under
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/ is not under my purview, but
drivers/nvdimm/ is. Since this driver is colocated with the "pmem"
driver let's not proliferate the "scm" vs "pmem" confusion.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-04 01:15    [W:0.061 / U:5.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site