From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org
Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 16:51:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <318d9157-6f2b-4ae5-70fc-a54d5919496e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8b232be-dfe9-0a67-c464-83fe5109070e@huawei.com>
On 2022-09-02 13:18, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/08/2022 11:24, John Garry wrote:
>> On 17/08/2022 11:09, John Garry wrote:
>>> This series includes:
>>> - remove checks in the code which are not required
>>> - the re-org, which I had originally posted separately
>>
>> BTW, Can we drop the !IOMMU_IOVA stubs in iova.h? I could not find a
>> kernel config which actually exercises that code (so testing changes
>> there is difficult).
>
> 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. Hence I guess I'm leaning towards "worth trying to see how it
looked, but let's not".
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?
Robin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-05 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-17 10:09 [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes John Garry
2022-08-17 10:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] iova: Remove some magazine pointer NULL checks John Garry
2022-08-17 10:36 ` Robin Murphy
2022-08-17 10:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] iova: Remove magazine BUG_ON() checks John Garry
2022-08-17 11:12 ` Robin Murphy
2022-08-17 10:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] iova: Re-order code to remove forward declarations John Garry
2022-08-17 10:24 ` [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes John Garry
2022-09-02 12:18 ` John Garry
2022-09-05 15:51 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2022-09-06 11:59 ` John Garry
2022-09-06 16:47 ` Robin Murphy
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=318d9157-6f2b-4ae5-70fc-a54d5919496e@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox