Re: [PATCH 2/4] dma/ia64: update ia64 machvecs

[akepner@sgi.com]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:25:58AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> In general, the patches look reasonable to me.  Just an observation:
> 
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:52 -0800, akepner@sgi.com wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-attrs.h b/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> > index e69de29..31af292 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
> > +#ifndef _DMA_ATTR_H
> > +#define _DMA_ATTR_H
> > +#ifdef ARCH_USES_DMA_ATTRS
> > +
> > +enum dma_attr {
> > +       DMA_ATTR_BARRIER,
> > +       DMA_ATTR_FOO,
> > +       DMA_ATTR_GOO,
> > +       DMA_ATTR_MAX,
> > +};
> > +
> 
> 
> The attribute names (DMA_ATTR_...) are going to have to live somewhere
> outside of the #ifdef ARCH_USES_DMA_ATTRS otherwise we'll get compile
> failures of drivers using attributes on architectures that don't support
> them.

Right. Thanks for catching that.

> 
> Secondly, DMA_ATTR_BARRIER doesn't quite sound right.  What you're
> actually doing is trying to prescribe strict ordering, so shouldn't this
> be something like DMA_ATTR_STRICT_ORDERING (and perhaps with a
> corresponding DMA_ATTR_RELAXED_ORDERING for the PCIe case).  

OK, I'll reconsider the names here.

> ... also,
> strike the DMA_ATTR_FOO and DMA_ATTR_GOO since they have no plausible
> meaning.
> 

Yeah, I realized only after sending that I'd forgotten to 
remove these. 

-- 
Arthur