Re: [PATCH 5/7] swiotlb: (re)Create swiotlb_unmap_single

[Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:37 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:32:20 -0500
> Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2009, at 4:09 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:34:44 -0500
>>> Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:24 PM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri,  3 Apr 2009 20:56:47 -0500
>>>>> Becky Bruce <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This mirrors the current swiotlb_sync_single() setup
>>>>>> where the swiotlb_unmap_single() function is static to this
>>>>>> file and contains the logic required to determine if we need
>>>>>> to call actual sync_single.  Previously, swiotlb_unmap_page
>>>>>> and swiotlb_unmap_sg were duplicating very similar code.
>>>>>> The duplicated code has also been reformatted for
>>>>>> readability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the swiotlb_unmap_sg code was previously doing
>>>>>> a complicated comparison to determine if an addresses needed
>>>>>> to be unmapped where a simple is_swiotlb_buffer() call
>>>>>> would have sufficed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> lib/swiotlb.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>>> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
>>>>>> index af2ec25..602315b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/lib/swiotlb.c
>>>>>> +++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think 'swiotlb_unmap_single' name is appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> swiotlb_unmap_single sounds like an exported function that IOMMUs
>>>>> can
>>>>> use (and it was) however it should not be.
>>>>
>>>> What do you suggest we call it?  __swiotlb_unmap_single.
>>>
>>> I think that __swiotlb_unmap_single is better because the name  
>>> implies
>>> that it's an internal function. It's fine by me.
>>>
>>> If it is odd that __swiotlb_unmap_single() is just a wrapper  
>>> function
>>> of unmap_single(), which does the real job to unmap a dma mapping,  
>>> it
>>> might be another possible option to rename unmap_single to
>>> do_unamp_single and use unmap_single.
>>
>> I think you lost me here.  I'd prefer to just use
>> __swiotlb_unmap_single at this point and get this code into the tree
>> and work on such renaming after the fact (if that's ok).
>
> If you are rushing to merge this right now, the original patchset is
> fine by me (I thought that you missed this merge window). I'll rename
> it later.

We probably did, but one can never tell with these things.  It seemed  
like Ingo merged and pushed some swiotlb changes late in the game for . 
29

I'm still not clear on what you are suggesting... "rename unmap_single  
to do_unamp_single and use unmap_single".

- k