Messages in this thread | | | From | Kumar Gala <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] swiotlb: (re)Create swiotlb_unmap_single | Date | Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:34:44 -0500 |
| |
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.
- k
| |