lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes
From
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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-06 19:00    [W:0.117 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site