From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761158AbZEGLT1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 07:19:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754683AbZEGLTP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 07:19:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50207 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754394AbZEGLTO (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 07:19:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:18:46 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yang Hongyang Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro Message-ID: <20090507111846.GI28398@elte.hu> References: <20090507141114M.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4A0272C7.3060409@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0272C7.3060409@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yang Hongyang wrote: > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do > > we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h? > > > > As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has > > two users and linux-next have other users. > > > > Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now? Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code. We missed the upstream window of removing the facilities altogether, we could certainly do that in the next merge window though. > CC:ingo > > I have no objections,actually I used to remove all these defines in my > first commit of these patch series,but got suggestions that keep these > defines one more circle.Maybe it's time to remove these defines now or > to remove at the end of this circle? > > Reviewed-by:yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com Thanks! Ingo