Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Reorganize iommu_table_setparms*() with new helper

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 13/07/2021 14:47, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> Hello Alexey,
>
> On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 19:26 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> > > > +                                        unsigned long liobn,
> > > > unsigned long win_addr,
> > > > +                                        unsigned long
> > > > window_size,
> > > > unsigned long page_shift,
> > > > +                                        unsigned long base,
> > > > struct
> > > > iommu_table_ops *table_ops)
> > >
> > >
> > > iommu_table_setparms() rather than passing 0 around.
> > >
> > > The same comment about "liobn" - set it in
> > > iommu_table_setparms_lpar().
> > > The reviewer will see what field atters in what situation imho.
> >
> > The idea here was to keep all tbl parameters setting in
> > _iommu_table_setparms (or iommu_table_setparms_common).
> >
> > I understand the idea that each one of those is optional in the other
> > case, but should we keep whatever value is present in the other
> > variable (not zeroing the other variable), or do someting like:
> >
> > tbl->it_index = 0;
> > tbl->it_base = basep;
> > (in iommu_table_setparms)
> >
> > tbl->it_index = liobn;
> > tbl->it_base = 0;
> > (in iommu_table_setparms_lpar)
>
> This one is supposed to be a question, but I missed the question mark.
> Sorry about that.

Ah ok :)

> I would like to get your opinion in this :)

Besides making the "base" parameter a pointer, I really do not have 
strong preference, just make it not hurting eyes of a reader, that's all :)

imho in general, rather than answering 5 weeks later, it is more 
productive to address whatever comments were made, add comments (in the 
code or commit logs) why you are sticking to your initial approach, 
rebase and repost the whole thing. Thanks,



--
Alexey