[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/11] swiotlb-xen: simplify cache maintainance
On 9/6/19 10:43 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 9/6/19 10:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:52:12AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> We need nop definitions of these two for x86.
>>>> Everything builds now but that's probably because the calls are under
>>>> 'if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))' which is always false so compiler
>>>> optimized is out. I don't think we should rely on that.
>>> That is how a lot of the kernel works. Provide protypes only for code
>>> that is semantically compiled, but can't ever be called due to
>>> IS_ENABLED() checks. It took me a while to get used to it, but it
>>> actually is pretty nice as the linker does the work for you to check
>>> that it really is never called. Much better than say a BUILD_BUG_ON().
>> (with corrected Juergen's email)
>> I know about IS_ENABLED() but I didn't realize that this is allowed for
>> compile-time inlines and such as well.
>> Anyway, for non-ARM bits
>> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <>
> Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>
> as well.
> Albeit folks have tested this under x86 Xen with 'swiotlb=force' right?

Yes, I did.


> I can test it myself but it will take a couple of days.
>> If this goes via Xen tree then the first couple of patches need an ack
>> from ARM maintainers.
>> -boris

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-06 16:49    [W:0.050 / U:11.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site