[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wsmghkgg.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:14:23 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com>
Cc: kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, chrisw@...hat.com,
allen.m.kay@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gcosta@...hat.com, avi@...ranet.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, BENAMI@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 DMA: Handle devices assigned to the guest by the host
Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c
> index 388b113..678cafb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c
> @@ -443,6 +443,17 @@ dma_alloc_coherent(struct device *dev, size_t size, dma_addr_t *dma_handle,
> memset(memory, 0, size);
> if (!mmu) {
> *dma_handle = bus;
> + if (unlikely(dma_ops->is_pv_device) &&
> + unlikely(dma_ops->is_pv_device(dev, dev->bus_id))) {
First double unlikely in a condition is useless. Just drop them.
And then ->is_xyz() in a generic vops interface is about as ugly
and non generic as you can get. dma_alloc_coherent is not performance
critical, so you should rather change the interface that ->alloc_coherent
is always called and the other handlers handle the !mmu case correctly.
In fact they need that already I guess (e.g. on DMAR there is not really
a nommu case)
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists