On (03/24/15 11:47), Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Yes, pass a function pointer argument that can be NULL or just make it a > member of the iommu_allocator struct (or whatever you call it) passed to > the init function and that can be NULL. My point is we don't need a > separate "ops" structure. Ok, I'll make this a function pointer to the iommu_tbl_pool_init() function (tomorrow) fwiw, the ops struct came out as a result of DaveM input, http://www.spinics.net/lists/sparclinux/msg13232.html albeit the original context is now moot. > Pass it to init and stash it in the table but don't call it > "iommu_table", let's use a name that conveys better the fact that this > is purely a DMA space allocator (to be embedded by the arch specific > iommu table). Something like iommu_alloc_zone or whatever you want to > call it. I keep finding new names whenever I think of it :-) please pick a name that you like as this mooshes all the patches, and I myself really dont care what it gets called (rose? :-)) as long as fat-fingering-risk is minimized Regarding the relationship with largepool, > But that might not be necessary. If indeed we very rarely use the large > pool, then just make it flush always. My feeling is that it will only > ever be used at driver init/remove time when allocating things like > descriptor rings, where the flush overhead dont' matter. ok, will factor this in tomorrow (assuming DaveM has no objections to anything proposed here, esp around the function pointer for flushall). --Sowmini -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
