Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759026AbZDGQwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:52:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755667AbZDGQwM (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:52:12 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:48901 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754364AbZDGQwK (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:52:10 -0400 Cc: beckyb@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, jeremy@goop.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com Message-Id: <77EA4458-602F-4DA9-B7E7-E48B5B0DCF91@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala To: FUJITA Tomonori In-Reply-To: <20090408013700L.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] swiotlb: (re)Create swiotlb_unmap_single Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:50:56 -0500 References: <20090407180928Y.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <9C76D5F2-5D3C-4499-B358-129428FA6F33@kernel.crashing.org> <20090408013700L.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2984 Lines: 81 On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:37 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:32:20 -0500 > Kumar Gala wrote: > >> >> On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:09 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:34:44 -0500 >>> Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:24 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:56:47 -0500 >>>>> Becky Bruce wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This mirrors the current swiotlb_sync_single() setup >>>>>> where the swiotlb_unmap_single() function is static to this >>>>>> file and contains the logic required to determine if we need >>>>>> to call actual sync_single. Previously, swiotlb_unmap_page >>>>>> and swiotlb_unmap_sg were duplicating very similar code. >>>>>> The duplicated code has also been reformatted for >>>>>> readability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that the swiotlb_unmap_sg code was previously doing >>>>>> a complicated comparison to determine if an addresses needed >>>>>> to be unmapped where a simple is_swiotlb_buffer() call >>>>>> would have sufficed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce >>>>>> --- >>>>>> lib/swiotlb.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c >>>>>> index af2ec25..602315b 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c >>>>>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c >>>>> >>>>> I don't think 'swiotlb_unmap_single' name is appropriate. >>>>> >>>>> swiotlb_unmap_single sounds like an exported function that IOMMUs >>>>> can >>>>> use (and it was) however it should not be. >>>> >>>> What do you suggest we call it? __swiotlb_unmap_single. >>> >>> I think that __swiotlb_unmap_single is better because the name >>> implies >>> that it's an internal function. It's fine by me. >>> >>> If it is odd that __swiotlb_unmap_single() is just a wrapper >>> function >>> of unmap_single(), which does the real job to unmap a dma mapping, >>> it >>> might be another possible option to rename unmap_single to >>> do_unamp_single and use unmap_single. >> >> I think you lost me here. I'd prefer to just use >> __swiotlb_unmap_single at this point and get this code into the tree >> and work on such renaming after the fact (if that's ok). > > If you are rushing to merge this right now, the original patchset is > fine by me (I thought that you missed this merge window). I'll rename > it later. We probably did, but one can never tell with these things. It seemed like Ingo merged and pushed some swiotlb changes late in the game for . 29 I'm still not clear on what you are suggesting... "rename unmap_single to do_unamp_single and use unmap_single". - k -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/