Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200501073949.120396-1-john.stultz@linaro.org>
 <20200501073949.120396-3-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20200501104810.v6oa2yhawr4iki67@DESKTOP-E1NTVVP.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20200501104810.v6oa2yhawr4iki67@DESKTOP-E1NTVVP.localdomain>
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 11:42:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CALAqxLVt0HJH5_2BvO7fRGZ_Vp9kKzj+j2=BZu_cbw=75dNoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] mm: cma: Add dma_heap flag to cma structure
To:     Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org>,
        Liam Mark <lmark@codeaurora.org>,
        Pratik Patel <pratikp@codeaurora.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Chenbo Feng <fengc@google.com>,
        Alistair Strachan <astrachan@google.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@google.com>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@google.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:48 AM Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 07:39:47AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> > +bool cma_dma_heap_enabled(struct cma *cma)
> > +{
> > +     return !!cma->dma_heap;
>
> Stylistic thing, but I don't think the !! is really necessary. It's
> already a bool anyway.

Yea, I was using a bit field earlier and then moved to a bool for
simplicity and left this. I saw it as soon as I sent the patch, so
it's already fixed up.

> > @@ -157,6 +167,7 @@ static int __init cma_init_reserved_areas(void)
> >  }
> >  core_initcall(cma_init_reserved_areas);
> >
> > +
>
> nit: spurious newline

Yep. Same. The things you only see once the mail is sent. :)

Thanks so much for the review though!
-john