[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab00aedc-085d-a4a3-e580-e13d00645d60@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:54:01 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/21] dma-iommu: factor atomic pool allocations into
helpers
On 17/04/2019 07:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 08:11:57AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:59:32PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2019 08:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> This keeps the code together and will simplify compiling the code
>>>> out on architectures that are always dma coherent.
>>>
>>> And this is where things take a turn in the direction I just can't get on
>>> with - I'm looking at the final result and the twisty maze of little
>>> disjoint helpers all overlapping each other in functionality is really
>>> difficult to follow. And I would *much* rather have things rely on
>>> compile-time constant optimisation than spend the future having to fix the
>>> #ifdefed parts for arm64 whenever x86-centric changes fail to test them.
>>
>> Can you draft up a patch on top of my series to show me what you
>> want? I can take care of finishing it up and moving the changes
>> into the right patches in the series.
>
> Any chance to make some progress on this? Or at least a better
> description of what you want?
Heh, I did actually start writing a reply last night to apologise for
the delay - I've been clearing the decks a bit so that I can sit down
and actually concentrate on this (plus the PCI DT mask fix). That's now
my plan for the rest of today :)
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists