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.
Is it worth to consider to implement these functions with the pointers?
>
> -Denny
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
