Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:47:28 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes | From | Robin Murphy <> |
| |
On 2022-09-06 12:59, John Garry wrote: > On 05/09/2022 16:51, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> >>> Any thoughts on this? Since I got no review of patch #3 I assume that >>> it is not keenly welcome either. >> >> Yeah, I applied patch #3 to have a look at the result, but couldn't >> really convince myself either way - there are certainly a few >> functions in weirdly incongruous places at the moment, but afterwards >> we end up with certain other things in rather contrived order for the >> sake of avoiding declarations, so overall it just didn't feel >> objectively better to me. Plus the fact that rewriting nearly 2/3 of >> the file stands to make backporting tweaks or fixes unnecessarily >> painful is hard to overlook. > > Yeah, that was my main concern. But if it is going to be done, then now > is as good a time as ever... > >> Hence I guess I'm leaning towards "worth trying to see how it looked, >> but let's not". >> > > ok, fine. But I do still feel that iova.c does need tidying to some > extent along these lines. > >> As for the stubs, it seems that they're currently unused due to >> linkage issues with IOMMU_IOVA=m - if we want better compile-test >> coverage, I wonder if we couldn't replace the IS_ENABLED() with >> IS_REACHABLE() and restore some of the previously-conditional selects? > > Sorry, but I am not familiar - what were some examples of > previously-conditional selects?
Commits 84db889e6d82 and c8a203647488 were the ones that most readily stood out from the current "select IOMMU_IOVA" lines.
Cheers, Robin.
| |