From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57259) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S1zBu-0003gp-Nq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:56:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S1zBo-0005GI-Gm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:56:30 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:33409) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S1zBo-0005Fy-9e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:56:24 -0500 Received: by bkcjg9 with SMTP id jg9so788131bkc.4 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:56:23 -0800 (PST) Sender: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:55:20 +0200 From: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu Message-ID: <20120227115520.GA8770@localhost> References: <1330054063-16860-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <1330054063-16860-5-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20120226100449.GB11324@redhat.com> <20120227002243.GE3433@truffala.fritz.box> <20120227103349.GB6731@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120227103349.GB6731@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/8] Add universal DMA helper functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Joerg Rodel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, Richard Henderson On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:33:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:22:43AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:04:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 02:27:39PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: [snip] > > > > > > I'm a bit confused with all the stubbing going on. > > > Is this the final form of the pci_* functions or just > > > a stub? If the final form, we probably should just > > > open-code them - they don't buy us much. > > > If not, let's add a comment? > > > > Well.. it's the intended final form of pci_dma_*() - which do become > > trivial wrappers, yes. > > I'd say let's drop them then (in a follow-up patch). The topic is > confusing enough without having to wade through layers of wrappers :) > Drop them how? Using dma_* stuff directly? That might work, but I remember others suggesting we should use a specialized PCI wrapper. Perhaps it makes sense if some other bus, or PCI itself at some point, needs to do something special. > > It's _not_ the intended final form of dma_*(), > > which need to grow code to do actual IOMMU translation. I'll add a > > comment about this in the next round. > > > > -- > > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code > > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ > > | _way_ _around_! > > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson