From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:09:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.13] swiotlb: add swiotlb_sync_single_range_for_{cpu,device} Message-Id: <20050830180912.GE18998@tuxdriver.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , discuss@x86-64.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Asit.K.Mallick@intel.com, goutham.rao@intel.com, davidm@hpl.hp.com On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 11:03:35AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > >+swiotlb_sync_single_range_for_cpu(struct device *hwdev, > >+swiotlb_sync_single_range_for_device(struct device *hwdev, > > Huh? These look identical ... same args, same code, just a > different name. Have you looked at the implementations for swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu and swiotlb_sync_single_for_device? Those are already identical. I'm just following the existing style/practice in that file. I could do an additional patch to rectify the replication in those functions if you'd like? Who is responsible for the swiotlb code? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com