[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250109182148.398f1cf1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 18:21:48 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jacob Keller
<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, anton.nadezhdin@...el.com,
przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, milena.olech@...el.com,
arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com, richardcochran@...il.com, Karol Kolacinski
<karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, Rinitha S <sx.rinitha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] ice: use rd32_poll_timeout_atomic in
ice_read_phy_tstamp_ll_e810
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 14:17:45 -0800 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_osdep.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_osdep.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
>
> #define rd32_poll_timeout(a, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> read_poll_timeout(rd32, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us, false, a, addr)
> +#define rd32_poll_timeout_atomic(a, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> + read_poll_timeout_atomic(rd32, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us, false, \
> + a, addr)
Could you deprecate the use of the osdep header? At the very least don't
add new stuff here. Back in the day "no OS abstraction layers" was
a pretty hard and fast rule. I don't hear it as much these days, but
I think it's still valid since this just obfuscates the code for all
readers outside your team.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists