[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b87ef7ac-81fc-c649-7ffb-73017ec99790@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:41:36 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dma-direct: implement complete bus_dma_mask handling
On 27/09/18 17:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:14:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> This just seemed more readable to me than min_not_zero, but if others
>>> prefer min_not_zero I can switch.
>>
>> Nah, just checking whether there were any intentionally different
>> assumptions compared to the couple of other places in the patch where
>> min_not_zero() *is* used. If it's purely a style thing then no worries
>> (personally I'd have written it yet another way anyway).
>
> I'm curious: how would you have written it?
Come to think of it, I actually already have, in iommu-dma:
if (dev->bus_dma_mask)
mask &= dev->bus_dma_mask;
but of course it's not so pretty for those cases where you don't already
have the local variable ready to go.
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists