From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933106AbXBLIOd (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:14:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933110AbXBLIOd (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:14:33 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:38580 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933106AbXBLIOc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:14:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [IA64] swiotlb abstraction (e.g. for Xen) From: Arjan van de Ven To: Jan Beulich Cc: Christoph Hellwig , tony.luck@intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <45D025BF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <200702070759.l177xIti030295@hera.kernel.org> <20070207083254.GA24561@lst.de> <20070211072555.GA22831@lst.de> <45D025BF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:14:25 +0100 Message-Id: <1171268065.6308.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 (2.8.2.1-3.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 07:30 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:32:54AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 07:59:18AM +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: > > > [IA64] swiotlb abstraction (e.g. for Xen) > > > > > > Add abstraction so that the file can be used by environments other than IA64 > > > and EM64T, namely for Xen. > > > > Tony, this code is more than ugly, and even further not needed for anything > > we actually need. Can you please revert it. > > > > Some comments below in case we need justification.. > > > > If Jan actually had a goal with that except making the code utterly > > unreadable he should try again with small patches that are well > > explained and do one thing at a at time. (And cane be reviewed an > > improved on if needed. > > As the topic says - the goal is to support Xen. Xen the linux guest or Xen the hypervisor? if it's the later, why on earth would we want to uglyfy linux for it? (arguably it holds in the former case as well)