Hi Christoph, On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:37:37AM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: >> I.e. ~90% of this patch set seems to be just mechanically dropping >> BUG_ON()s and converting open coded stuff to use accessor functions >> (which should be macros or get inlined, right?) - and the remaining >> bit is not flushing if we don't have a physical page somewhere. > > Which is was 90%. By lines changed most actually is the diffs for > the cache flushing. I was talking in terms of changes made, not lines changed: by my recollection, about a third of the patches didn't touch flush calls and most of the lines changed looked like refactoring so that making the flush call conditional would be easier. I guess it smelled like you were doing lots of distinct changes in a single patch and I got my numbers wrong. >> Would it make sense to split this patch set into a few bits: one to >> drop all the useless BUG_ON()s, one to convert all the open coded >> stuff to accessor functions, then another to do the actual page-less >> sg stuff? > > Without the ifs the BUG_ON() actually are useful to assert we > never feed the sort of physical addresses we can't otherwise support, > so I don't think that part is doable. My point is that there's a couple of patches that only remove BUG_ON()s, which implies that for that particular driver it doesn't matter if there's a physical page or not, so therefore that code is purely "documentation". Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
