On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24/03/2022 11:57, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 24/03/2022 09:31, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Typed up how I see it - bash away. >>>> >>>> So is intel_vtd_active() so performance critical that it needs to be >>>> inline? >>>> >>>> We're passing struct drm_i915_private * everywhere we can, and it just >>>> feels silly to use struct drm_device * to avoid the include. >>>> >>>> Static inlines considered harmful. :p >>> >>> Same as it is ;), and gee, who was it that he said he was just trying to >>> declutter i915_drv.h.. ;p >> >> Not at the cost of clarity elsewhere! > > To be clear now you oppose intel_vtd_active taking struct device? I > thought you expressed general agreement when I presented the idea in the > previous thread. > > I don't mind hugely to go either way, but I also don't see how taking > struct device makes anything unclear. (I only think > intel_vtd_run_as_guest is really wrong in this story but that's old news.) > > And if I make it take i915 then I would want to name it i915_vtd_active > as well. But then you wouldn't like that. > > Should we just stuff all this into i915_utils for now, as I think Lucas > suggested? Static inline or not, I don't care. Just general grumpiness. Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > Regards, > > Tvrtko -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
