From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14459C10F00 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:19:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A7D20674 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 14:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726239AbgCGOSj (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 09:18:39 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:41194 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726074AbgCGOSj (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 09:18:39 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 8D70C68BE1; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 15:18:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 15:18:36 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Lu Baolu Cc: Joerg Roedel , ashok.raj@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Drake , Derrick Jonathan , Jerry Snitselaar , Robin Murphy , Christoph Hellwig , Sai Praneeth Prakhya Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] iommu: Add dev_def_domain_type() callback in iommu_ops Message-ID: <20200307141836.GA26190@lst.de> References: <20200307062014.3288-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20200307062014.3288-2-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200307062014.3288-2-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Do we really need the dev_ prefix in the method name? Shouldn't the struct device parameter be hint enough?