[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210313023657.GC3402637@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:36:57 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Ira Weiny <iweiny@...el.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Jakowski Andrzej <andrzej.jakowski@...el.com>,
Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>,
Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/11] dma-mapping: Add flags to dma_map_ops to
indicate PCI P2PDMA support
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> +int dma_pci_p2pdma_supported(struct device *dev)
^^^
bool?
> +{
> + const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
> +
> + return !ops || ops->flags & DMA_F_PCI_P2PDMA_SUPPORTED;
Is this logic correct? I would have expected.
return (ops && ops->flags & DMA_F_PCI_P2PDMA_SUPPORTED);
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists