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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 942AFC282D8 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB9D21726 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730209AbfBAQQk (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:16:40 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35697 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726172AbfBAQQk (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:16:40 -0500 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 841E168D93; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:16:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:16:38 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Joerg Roedel , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tom Lendacky , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] dma-iommu: don't use a scatterlist in iommu_dma_alloc Message-ID: <20190201161638.GJ6532@lst.de> References: <20190114094159.27326-1-hch@lst.de> <20190114094159.27326-4-hch@lst.de> <5145b2f7-6fc8-6ed9-4cf2-9b7e1d33b0fe@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5145b2f7-6fc8-6ed9-4cf2-9b7e1d33b0fe@arm.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 On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 03:24:45PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 14/01/2019 09:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Directly iterating over the pages makes the code a bit simpler and >> prepares for the following changes. > > It also defeats the whole purpose of __iommu_dma_alloc_pages(), so I'm not > really buying the simplification angle - you've *seen* that code, right? ;) How does it defeat the purpose of __iommu_dma_alloc_pages?