All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: "xieyongji@bytedance.com" <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
	<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:54:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c05c2217-3fc3-63a0-b332-004603315f84@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ac3a678-3126-edd9-cb23-72c05f3dcd34@huawei.com>

On 2022-01-28 11:32, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 17:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> As above, I vote for just forward-declaring the free routine in iova.c
>> and keeping it entirely private.
> 
> BTW, speaking of forward declarations, it's possible to remove all the 
> forward declarations in iova.c now that the FQ code is gone - but with a 
> good bit of rearranging. However I am not sure how much people care 
> about that or whether the code layout is sane...

Indeed, I was very tempted to raise the question there of whether there 
was any more cleanup or refactoring that could be done to justify 
collecting all the rcache code together at the top of iova.c. But in the 
end I didn't, so my opinion still remains a secret...

Robin.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: "xieyongji@bytedance.com" <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:54:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c05c2217-3fc3-63a0-b332-004603315f84@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ac3a678-3126-edd9-cb23-72c05f3dcd34@huawei.com>

On 2022-01-28 11:32, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 17:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> As above, I vote for just forward-declaring the free routine in iova.c
>> and keeping it entirely private.
> 
> BTW, speaking of forward declarations, it's possible to remove all the 
> forward declarations in iova.c now that the FQ code is gone - but with a 
> good bit of rearranging. However I am not sure how much people care 
> about that or whether the code layout is sane...

Indeed, I was very tempted to raise the question there of whether there 
was any more cleanup or refactoring that could be done to justify 
collecting all the rcache code together at the top of iova.c. But in the 
end I didn't, so my opinion still remains a secret...

Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: "xieyongji@bytedance.com" <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:54:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c05c2217-3fc3-63a0-b332-004603315f84@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ac3a678-3126-edd9-cb23-72c05f3dcd34@huawei.com>

On 2022-01-28 11:32, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/01/2022 17:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> As above, I vote for just forward-declaring the free routine in iova.c
>> and keeping it entirely private.
> 
> BTW, speaking of forward declarations, it's possible to remove all the 
> forward declarations in iova.c now that the FQ code is gone - but with a 
> good bit of rearranging. However I am not sure how much people care 
> about that or whether the code layout is sane...

Indeed, I was very tempted to raise the question there of whether there 
was any more cleanup or refactoring that could be done to justify 
collecting all the rcache code together at the top of iova.c. But in the 
end I didn't, so my opinion still remains a secret...

Robin.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-28 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-26 13:55 [PATCH] iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init John Garry
2022-01-26 13:55 ` John Garry via iommu
2022-01-26 17:00 ` Robin Murphy
2022-01-26 17:00   ` Robin Murphy
2022-01-26 17:00   ` Robin Murphy
2022-01-26 17:58   ` John Garry
2022-01-26 17:58     ` John Garry via iommu
2022-01-28 11:32   ` John Garry
2022-01-28 11:32     ` John Garry via iommu
2022-01-28 16:54     ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2022-01-28 16:54       ` Robin Murphy
2022-01-28 16:54       ` Robin Murphy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c05c2217-3fc3-63a0-b332-004603315f84@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xieyongji@bytedance.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.