From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932254AbVH3SQA (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:16:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932253AbVH3SQA (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:16:00 -0400 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([24.172.12.4]:18443 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932242AbVH3SP7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:15:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:09:14 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" 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 Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.13] swiotlb: add swiotlb_sync_single_range_for_{cpu,device} Message-ID: <20050830180912.GE18998@tuxdriver.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Luck, Tony" , 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 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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