Rather than using static int max_dma_bits, this
can be coverted to use as macro.
Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
---
drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
index ae1df49..d1eced5 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
#include <asm/xen/page-coherent.h>
#include <trace/events/swiotlb.h>
+#define MAX_DMA_BITS 32
/*
* Used to do a quick range check in swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single and
* swiotlb_tbl_sync_single_*, to see if the memory was in fact allocated by this
@@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
return 0;
}
-static int max_dma_bits = 32;
-
static int
xen_swiotlb_fixup(void *buf, size_t size, unsigned long nslabs)
{
@@ -135,7 +134,7 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
p + (i << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
get_order(slabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
dma_bits, &dma_handle);
- } while (rc && dma_bits++ < max_dma_bits);
+ } while (rc && dma_bits++ < MAX_DMA_BITS);
if (rc)
return rc;
--
1.9.1
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:04 PM Souptick Joarder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Rather than using static int max_dma_bits, this
> can be coverted to use as macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
If it is still not late, can we get this patch in queue for 5.4 ?
> ---
> drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> index ae1df49..d1eced5 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
> #include <asm/xen/page-coherent.h>
>
> #include <trace/events/swiotlb.h>
> +#define MAX_DMA_BITS 32
> /*
> * Used to do a quick range check in swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single and
> * swiotlb_tbl_sync_single_*, to see if the memory was in fact allocated by this
> @@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int max_dma_bits = 32;
> -
> static int
> xen_swiotlb_fixup(void *buf, size_t size, unsigned long nslabs)
> {
> @@ -135,7 +134,7 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
> p + (i << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
> get_order(slabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
> dma_bits, &dma_handle);
> - } while (rc && dma_bits++ < max_dma_bits);
> + } while (rc && dma_bits++ < MAX_DMA_BITS);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
On 9/6/19 8:27 AM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:04 PM Souptick Joarder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rather than using static int max_dma_bits, this
>> can be coverted to use as macro.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
> If it is still not late, can we get this patch in queue for 5.4 ?
Yes, I will queue it later today.
-boris
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:02 PM Boris Ostrovsky
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/19 8:27 AM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:04 PM Souptick Joarder <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Rather than using static int max_dma_bits, this
> >> can be coverted to use as macro.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <[email protected]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
> > If it is still not late, can we get this patch in queue for 5.4 ?
>
>
> Yes, I will queue it later today.
Thanks Boris.