From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:38:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup swiotlb.c a bit Message-Id: <16861.37791.805484.830344@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: <200501060945.12364.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200501060945.12364.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:45:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes said: Jesse> This patch mostly cleans up trailing whitespace That's OK, and really needed. I was tempted to do that with my last swiotlb fix, but didn't want to mix formatting cleanups with real fixes. Jesse> and long lines Well, I don't like how you "fixed" some of them and I continue to be of the opinion that 100 cols is OK (yes, I know that somebody managed to get the 80 cols into the kernel formatting document, but that doesn't change reality...). For example, something like this: + io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs * + (1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT)); I find more readable if it's formatted as: io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs * (1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT)); Jesse> gets rid of some unnecessary {} blocks. The blocks where there to indicate locking. I find that useful, even if Andrew (and perhaps others) disagree. Jesse> Does it look ok to you David? I was thinking it might be Jesse> nice to abstract it slightly more to make the swiotlb Jesse> functions callable from a platform's regular PCI mapping Jesse> routines as needed, since swiotlb assumes that physical Jesse> addresses and bus addresses are the same. Well, it probably should move outside of the ia64 tree anyhow. The way x86_64 includes swiotlb.c at the moment is just absolutely gross. --david