[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710065054.GA19416@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 08:50:54 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>, hch@....de,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dma-pool: Get rid of dma_in_atomic_pool()
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:51:13PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
>
> > The function is only used once and can be simplified to a one-liner.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
>
> I'll leave this one to Christoph to decide on. One thing I really liked
> about hacking around in kernel/dma is the coding style, it really follows
> "one function does one thing and does it well" even if there is only one
> caller. dma_in_atomic_pool() was an attempt to follow in those footsteps.
While I like the helper aswell, I don't see how it could work nicely
with the changes in patch 4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists