Messages in this thread | | | From | Kumar Gala <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] swiotlb: (re)Create swiotlb_unmap_single | Date | Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:50:56 -0500 |
| |
On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:37 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:32:20 -0500 > Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:09 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:34:44 -0500 >>> Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:24 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:56:47 -0500 >>>>> Becky Bruce <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org> 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 <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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
| |