From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53727) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9FRc-0001cH-OL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:09:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9FRb-0000Ab-6A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:09:56 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::241]:55985) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e9FRb-0000A2-1P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:09:55 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-x241.google.com with SMTP id p186so29598460ioe.12 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <836e7a63-c841-a866-c82c-04bf785420ca@ilande.co.uk> References: <1508947167-5304-1-git-send-email-mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> <836e7a63-c841-a866-c82c-04bf785420ca@ilande.co.uk> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:09:53 -0300 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv4 00/13] sun4m: sparc32_dma tidy-ups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mark Cave-Ayland Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Artyom Tarasenko On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 27/10/17 17:42, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: [...] >> If you don't accept my comments (or don't have time) about keeping >> "hw/sparc/sparc32_dma.h" generic and moving network/scsi parts in >> "hw/sparc/sun4m.h" you can still add to your series: >> >> Acked-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 > > Thanks for the review, I've added your R-B tags to the individual > patches. Note that while potentially I could move the network/scsi parts > to hw/sparc/sun4m.h I feel that it's a slightly better match for the > SPARC32 DMA container device to remain in sparc32_dma.c. So for these > patches I've just added your A-B tag. OK. >> Also while testing your series on a Debian image, I noted your series >> results faster, I timed: >> >> master: 104s >> your series: 85s (>20% faster!) > > Really? Is that for just this patchset or also with the v2 IOMMU > patchset applied on top? I can't immediately see how moving the logic > into sparc32_dma.c could make a difference here... Yes, I was trying with both series applied, so this comment belong to the other series (IOMMU). Regards, Phil.