Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2022 12:59:31 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes | From | John Garry <> |
| |
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?
Thanks, John
| |