[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613174140.GM11948@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:41:40 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Doug Anderson <armlinux@...isordat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/44] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:00:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:49:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Do we not expect the number of argument to grow ? This "cleanup" would
> > do away with such possibilities, and then require adding the API later,
> > and this requiring a full set of collateral evolutions again when this
> > is needed. What was the original motivation for using this instead of
> > the approach you are suggesting ?
>
> We still got plenty of space for attrs. If you're worried about running
> out of 32 flags we could do a dma_attrs_t typedef that we could swich
> to a u64. That would have another advantage in that we could add a
> __bitwise sparse annotation to avoid people passing the wrong kind of
> flags.
History shows only sparse use of extensions of these these attributes so I
think the approach with a typedef is definitely more suitable for this API, and
should last long enough. The added gain of the annotation is a nice bonus.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists