Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2009 03:18:00 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/7] swiotlb: (re)Create swiotlb_unmap_single | From | FUJITA Tomonori <> |
| |
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:32:12 -0500 Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:22 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:50:56 -0500 > > Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > Well, merging patches that have not been tested linux-next late is > > what we should not do, I guess. I like to see Becky's patch in 2.6.30 > > because I have some swiotlb changes for 2.6.31 though. > > Same here. It makes it easier for us to work on the powerpc arch > specific changes for .31 if we can get these into .30. What are you > looking at for .31?
I need to finish the dma_mapping_ops cleanups and cross-arch unification stuff:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123827903216314&w=2
But the changes to swiotlb is minor. BTW, I have the patches for powerpc too.
> Ingo, any comments on that?
| |