From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux ACPI" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"Vishal L Verma" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
"Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Move some definitions to mem.h
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:21:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210414102115.00001f09@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iueMDPxcEuLg=NKydkRL+xmEn-udHjKYB493iTQShaAg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:42:37 -0700
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:18 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Cameron
> > <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:30:47 -0700
> > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In preparation for sharing cxl.h with other generic CXL consumers,
> > > > move / consolidate some of the memory device specifics to mem.h.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > > Would be good to see something in this patch description saying
> > > why you chose to have mem.h rather than push the defines down
> > > into mem.c (which from the current code + patch set looks like
> > > the more logical thing to do).
> >
> > The main motivation was least privilege access to memory-device
> > details, so they had to move out of cxl.h. As to why move them in to a
> > new mem.h instead of piling more into mem.c that's just a personal
> > organizational style choice to aid review. I tend to go to headers
> > first and read data structure definitions before reading the
> > implementation, and having that all in one place is cleaner than
> > interspersed with implementation details in the C code. It's all still
> > private to drivers/cxl/ so I don't see any "least privilege" concerns
> > with moving it there.
> >
> > Does that satisfy your concern?
> >
> > If yes, I'll add the above to v3.
>
> Oh, another thing it helps is the information content of diffstats to
> distinguish definition changes from implementation development.
I go the other way style wise, but agree it doesn't really matter for
local headers included from few other files. Adding a above to
comment will at least avoid anyone else (or forgetful me) raising question on v3.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 14:30 [PATCH v2 0/8] CXL Port Enumeration Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Move some definitions to mem.h Dan Williams
2021-04-06 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-04-14 0:18 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-14 0:42 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-14 9:21 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2021-04-01 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] cxl/mem: Introduce 'struct cxl_regs' for "composable" CXL devices Dan Williams
2021-04-06 17:00 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-04-14 0:40 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] cxl/core: Rename bus.c to core.c Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:31 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] cxl/core: Refactor CXL register lookup for bridge reuse Dan Williams
2021-04-06 17:00 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-04-15 20:53 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:31 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] cxl/acpi: Introduce ACPI0017 driver and cxl_root Dan Williams
2021-04-01 21:34 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-01 21:34 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-06 17:32 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-04-15 15:00 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:31 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] cxl/Kconfig: Default drivers to CONFIG_CXL_BUS Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:31 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] cxl/port: Introduce cxl_port objects Dan Williams
2021-04-06 17:44 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-04-08 22:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-04-09 2:13 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-13 17:18 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-14 1:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-04-15 5:21 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-01 14:31 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] cxl/acpi: Add module parameters to stand in for ACPI tables Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210414102115.00001f09@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.