[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j9mEOn_sJSwX+rY_6wFjuU_JB7e075_n_Q5sfgiGsqew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:57:38 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 03/10] PCI/DOE: Add Data Object Exchange Aux Driver
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:58 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
[..]
> > It just seems an unnecessary hunk of code for the core to carry when
> > it's trivial for a client of the core to do:
> >
> > task->private = &completion;
> > task->end_task = complete_completion;
> > submit_task()
> > wait_for_completion(&completion);
>
> OK, we can move this to the callers though function obviously will
> also need renaming - I guess to pci_doe_exchange() and now need to take a
> task rather than the exchange.
>
> I personally slightly prefer the layered approach, but don't care that
> strongly.
Like I said, you and Ira are holding the pen, so if you decide to keep
the layering, just document the ontology somewhere and I'll let it go.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists