[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240709115103.GA7662@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:51:03 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
"oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com" <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"petr@...arici.cz" <petr@...arici.cz>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] swiotlb: Reduce swiotlb pool lookups
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:48:08AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Your tweaks look fine to me. Evidently I misunderstood your
> preference in our previous exchange about #ifdef vs. IS_ENABLED()
> in swiotlb_find_pool(), and the effect on dma_uses_io_tlb.
Actually I actively mislead you. Yes, I prefer the IS_ENABLED, but
I missed that it would require make the field available unconditionally,
which is not worth the tradeoff. Sorry for that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists