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

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

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.

- k