[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d3ee444-f528-673e-48f9-633138398543@ozlabs.ru>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:43:49 +1000
From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Create defines for
operations in ibm,ddw-applicable
On 02/07/2020 10:36, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 10:21 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> enum {
>>> DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN,
>>> DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN,
>>> DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN,
>>>
>>> DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE
>>> }
>>> IMO, it looks better than all the defines before.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> No, not really, these come from a binary interface so the reader of this
>> cares about absolute numbers and rather wants to see them explicitly.
>
> Makes sense to me.
> I am still getting experience on where to use enum vs define. Thanks
> for the tip!
>
> Using something like
> enum {
> DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN = 0,
> DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN = 1,
> DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN = 2,
>
> DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE
> };
>
> would be fine too?
This is fine too.
> Or should one stick to #define in this case?
imho a matter of taste but after some grepping it feels like #define is
mostly used which does not mean it is a good idea. Keep it enum and see
if it passed mpe's filter :)
--
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists