Re: [PATCH 0/4 v4] dma: dma_{un}map_{single|sg}_attrs() interface

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:41:06 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> > +#ifdef ARCH_USES_DMA_ATTRS
> 
> There is no precedent for ARCH_USES_*.
> 
> There is a little bit of precedent for ARCH_HAVE_*
> 
> There is lots of precendence for ARCH_HAS_*.
> 
> We don't like ARCH_HAS_* anyway ;) What can we do to get rid of this? 
> Ideally, make it available on all architectures at zero cost to those which
> don't need it.  If that is impractical (why?) then it is preferable to do
> this in Kconfig.

Sam has been pushing HAVE_* and even added that to
Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt.

> > +/*
> > + * dma_set_attr - set a specific attribute
> > + * may be called with a null attrs
> > + */

Use kernel-doc notation?

> > +static inline int dma_set_attr(struct dma_attrs *attrs, enum dma_attr attr)
> > +{
> > +	if (!attrs)
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (attr < DMA_ATTR_MAX) {
> > +		attrs->flags |= (1 << attr);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> 
> Is there any non-buggy reason why code would pass an out-of-range attribute
> into this function?  If not, BUG_ON() would be appropriate treatment.
> 
> This function might already be too large to inline, and a BUG_ON() might
> make it larger.
> 
> > +/*
> > + * dma_get_attr - check for a specific attribute
> > + * may be called with a null attrs
> > + */

Ditto.

> > +static inline int dma_get_attr(struct dma_attrs *attrs, enum dma_attr attr)
> > +{
> > +	if (!attrs)
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (attr < DMA_ATTR_MAX) {
> > +		int ret = attrs->flags & (1 << attr);
> > +		return !!ret;
> > +	}
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}


---
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/