On 24/03/2022 18:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
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>
No worries. Ack is for this version or with i915_ prefixes in
i915_utils.h/c?
Regards,
Tvrtko
