From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42LgFn3Pz6zF37k for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:27:40 +1000 (AEST) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:27:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Marek Szyprowski , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dma-direct: implement complete bus_dma_mask handling Message-ID: <20180927162737.GA11974@lst.de> References: <20180920185247.20037-1-hch@lst.de> <20180920185247.20037-5-hch@lst.de> <20180927153252.GE10566@lst.de> <967e98b1-99ab-8f95-4c89-6156ce489b93@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <967e98b1-99ab-8f95-4c89-6156ce489b93@arm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:14:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> This just seemed more readable to me than min_not_zero, but if others >> prefer min_not_zero I can switch. > > Nah, just checking whether there were any intentionally different > assumptions compared to the couple of other places in the patch where > min_not_zero() *is* used. If it's purely a style thing then no worries > (personally I'd have written it yet another way anyway). I'm curious: how would you have written it? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07774C43382 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FBCC2168B for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:30:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8FBCC2168B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42LgJt2K0ZzF381 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:30:22 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lst.de (client-ip=213.95.11.211; helo=newverein.lst.de; envelope-from=hch@lst.de; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42LgFn3Pz6zF37k for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:27:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 9131268B02; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:27:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:27:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dma-direct: implement complete bus_dma_mask handling Message-ID: <20180927162737.GA11974@lst.de> References: <20180920185247.20037-1-hch@lst.de> <20180920185247.20037-5-hch@lst.de> <20180927153252.GE10566@lst.de> <967e98b1-99ab-8f95-4c89-6156ce489b93@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <967e98b1-99ab-8f95-4c89-6156ce489b93@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig , Marek Szyprowski Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Message-ID: <20180927162737.CgFIEXzdFs-yH0hzGdqiLiil84JcEDGiyFxqgMFCT_U@z> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:14:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> This just seemed more readable to me than min_not_zero, but if others >> prefer min_not_zero I can switch. > > Nah, just checking whether there were any intentionally different > assumptions compared to the couple of other places in the patch where > min_not_zero() *is* used. If it's purely a style thing then no worries > (personally I'd have written it yet another way anyway). I'm curious: how would you have written it?