[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [RESEND2 PATCH 1/3] memremap: add MEMREMAP_WC flag
Hi Andrew,

Would you pick these up if I rebase onto linux-next?

How strongly do you feel about the input argument modification vs.
staying in-line with the rest of the function?



On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:23:00AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>Hi Andrew,
>Thanks for taking a look,
>On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:03:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:30:50 +0000 Brian Starkey <> wrote:
>>The patch generally looks OK to me. It generates rejects against
>>linux-next because of some janitorial changes in memremap.c.
>Ah yeah, so it does - sorry. I was hoping this could make it into 4.5,
>but I can rebase onto linux-next if that's better. Annoyingly it only
>conflicts because of a couple of quotation marks.
>>>@@ -101,6 +107,11 @@ void *memremap(resource_size_t offset, size_t size, unsigned long flags)
>>> addr = ioremap_wt(offset, size);
>>> }
>>>+ if (!addr && (flags & MEMREMAP_WC)) {
>>>+ flags &= ~MEMREMAP_WC;
>>>+ addr = ioremap_wc(offset, size);
>>>+ }
>>> return addr;
>>> }
>>The modifications of `flags' is unneeded (and the compiler will remove
>>it). And generally the modification of incoming args is a bit nasty
>>IMO - I find it's better to treat them as const - part of the calling
>>environment which can be relied upon to be unaltered as the code
>To be honest I was just mirroring the rest of the function. I guess
>the idea was filtering the different mapping types in case one of the
>'mappers' can handle multiple flags or something. I'll remove it if
>you like, I just thought that extending the functionality in-keeping
>with the current semantics was a better evolution - let me know.

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-17 13:21    [W:0.061 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site