Re: [RFC] drm/i915: Split out intel_vtd_active and run_as_guest to own header

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




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.

Regards,

Tvrtko



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux