[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190718084230.GB24562@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:42:30 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] dma-mapping: Remove dma_check_mask()
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:28:55AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> sme_active() is an x86-specific function so it's better not to call it from
> generic code. Christoph Hellwig mentioned that "There is no reason why we
> should have a special debug printk just for one specific reason why there
> is a requirement for a large DMA mask.", so just remove dma_check_mask().
>
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists