On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:52:31PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:17:09AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:08:21AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:43:06PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: >>+ >>+#define BAD_DMA_ADDRESS ((u64)0) >What is the advantage in using directly u64 values instead of >pointers? You will get NULL and functions which return pointers >without need of casting. > >... >>+static u64 rvt_dma_map_single(struct ib_device *dev, void *cpu_addr, >>+ size_t size, enum dma_data_direction direction) >>+{ >>+ if (WARN_ON(!valid_dma_direction(direction))) >>+ return BAD_DMA_ADDRESS; >>+ >>+ return (u64)cpu_addr; >>+} >An example of such function. Honestly I'm not really sure why it's done this way. We are just following the signature of the function in struct ib_dma_mapping_ops.
Since that would be a core change it's beyond the scope of this patch series I think, but something that could certainly be done. I just wouldn't want to tie that to rdmavt.
-Denny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
