[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ac3a678-3126-edd9-cb23-72c05f3dcd34@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:32:16 +0000
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>
CC: "xieyongji@...edance.com" <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init
On 26/01/2022 17:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
> As above, I vote for just forward-declaring the free routine in iova.c
> and keeping it entirely private.
BTW, speaking of forward declarations, it's possible to remove all the
forward declarations in iova.c now that the FQ code is gone - but with a
good bit of rearranging. However I am not sure how much people care
about that or whether the code layout is sane...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists