Dan Williams writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:43 AM Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jeff Moyer wrote:
> [..]
>> > > +
>> > > + if (cmd == ND_CMD_CALL) {
>> > > + int i;
>> > > +
>> > > + if (call_pkg && nfit_mem->family !=
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:43 AM Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jeff Moyer wrote:
[..]
> > > +
> > > + if (cmd == ND_CMD_CALL) {
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + if (call_pkg && nfit_mem->family != call_pkg->nd_family)
> > > +
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:19 AM Jeff Moyer wrote:
>
> Dan Williams writes:
>
> > The _DSM function number validation only happens to succeed when the
> > generic Linux command number translation corresponds with a
> > DSM-family-specific function number. This breaks NVDIMM-N
> > implementations
Dan Williams writes:
> The _DSM function number validation only happens to succeed when the
> generic Linux command number translation corresponds with a
> DSM-family-specific function number. This breaks NVDIMM-N
> implementations that correctly implement _LSR, _LSW, and _LSI, but do
> not
Hi Dan,
On 12-Jan-19 5:29 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
The _DSM function number validation only happens to succeed when the
generic Linux command number translation corresponds with a
DSM-family-specific function number. This breaks NVDIMM-N
implementations that correctly implement _LSR, _LSW, and
The _DSM function number validation only happens to succeed when the
generic Linux command number translation corresponds with a
DSM-family-specific function number. This breaks NVDIMM-N
implementations that correctly implement _LSR, _LSW, and _LSI, but do
not happen to publish support for DSM
6 matches
Mail list logo
