On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 9/6/19 10:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:52:12AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >> We need nop definitions of these two for x86. > >> > >> Everything builds now but that's probably because the calls are under > >> 'if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))' which is always false so compiler > >> optimized is out. I don't think we should rely on that. > > That is how a lot of the kernel works. Provide protypes only for code > > that is semantically compiled, but can't ever be called due to > > IS_ENABLED() checks. It took me a while to get used to it, but it > > actually is pretty nice as the linker does the work for you to check > > that it really is never called. Much better than say a BUILD_BUG_ON(). > > > (with corrected Juergen's email) > > I know about IS_ENABLED() but I didn't realize that this is allowed for > compile-time inlines and such as well. > > Anyway, for non-ARM bits > > Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> as well. Albeit folks have tested this under x86 Xen with 'swiotlb=force' right? I can test it myself but it will take a couple of days. > > If this goes via Xen tree then the first couple of patches need an ack > from ARM maintainers. > > -boris _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
