Hi Bjorn/Rafael,
Let me redo the patch with enum then. At least, that's more clear to
everyone.
Thanks,
Suravee
On 10/19/15 21:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit
Hi Bjorn/Rafael,
Let me redo the patch with enum then. At least, that's more clear to
everyone.
Thanks,
Suravee
On 10/19/15 21:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Bjorn / Rafael,
>
> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >
> >On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>[..]
> >>I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
> >>still doesn't
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:53:28PM -0500, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Bjorn / Rafael,
>
> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >
> >On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>[..]
> >>I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
> >>still doesn't
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
still doesn't give a hint about the *sense* of the return value. I
think it'd be easier to read if there
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for your feedback. And sorry for late response. Some how I didn't
see this earlier. Please see my comments below.
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
So, in order to simplify the function, this patch renames acpi_check_dma()
to acpi_check_dma_coherency() to
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for your feedback. And sorry for late response. Some how I didn't
see this earlier. Please see my comments below.
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
So, in order to simplify the function, this patch renames acpi_check_dma()
to acpi_check_dma_coherency() to
Bjorn / Rafael,
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 09/14/2015 09:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[..]
I think acpi_check_dma_coherency() is better, but only slightly. It
still doesn't give a hint about the *sense* of the return value. I
think it'd be easier to read if there
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 08:54:37PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The original name of acpi_check_dma() function does not clearly tell what
> exactly it is checking. Also, returning two boolean values (one to indicate
> device is DMA capability, and the other to inidicate device coherency
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 08:54:37PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The original name of acpi_check_dma() function does not clearly tell what
> exactly it is checking. Also, returning two boolean values (one to indicate
> device is DMA capability, and the other to inidicate device coherency
The original name of acpi_check_dma() function does not clearly tell what
exactly it is checking. Also, returning two boolean values (one to indicate
device is DMA capability, and the other to inidicate device coherency
attribute) can be confusing.
So, in order to simplify the function, this
The original name of acpi_check_dma() function does not clearly tell what
exactly it is checking. Also, returning two boolean values (one to indicate
device is DMA capability, and the other to inidicate device coherency
attribute) can be confusing.
So, in order to simplify the function, this
12 matches
Mail list logo
