Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1410449 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC v2] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC v2] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-31 19:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2016-06-01 07:40 +0200
      Re: [RFC v2] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-06-01 10:00 +0200

#1410449 — Re: [RFC v2] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
> DMA attributes passed by pointer.  Thus the pointer can point to const
> data.  However the attributes do not have to be a bitfield. Instead
> unsigned long will do fine:
> 
> 1. This is just simpler.  Both in terms of reading the code and setting
>    attributes.  Instead of initializing local attributes on the stack and
>    passing pointer to it to dma_set_attr(), just set the bits.
> 
> 2. It brings safeness and checking for const correctness because the
>    attributes are passed by value.
> 
> Please have in mind that this is RFC, not finished yet.  Only ARM and
> ARM64 are fixed (and not everywhere).
> However other API users also have to be converted which is quite
> intrusive.  I would rather avoid it until the overall approach is
> accepted.

This looks great!  Please continue doing the full conversion.

> +/**
> + * List of possible attributes associated with a DMA mapping. The semantics
> + * of each attribute should be defined in Documentation/DMA-attributes.txt.
> + */
> +#define DMA_ATTR_WRITE_BARRIER		BIT(1)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_WEAK_ORDERING		BIT(2)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_WRITE_COMBINE		BIT(3)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_NON_CONSISTENT		BIT(4)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_NO_KERNEL_MAPPING	BIT(5)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC		BIT(6)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS	BIT(7)
> +#define DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_SINGLE_PAGES	BIT(8)

No really for this patch, but I would much prefer to document them next
to the code in the long run.  Also I really think these BIT() macros
are a distraction compared to the (1 << N) notation.

> +/**
> + * dma_get_attr - check for a specific attribute
> + * @attr: attribute to look for
> + * @attrs: attributes to check within
> + */
> +static inline bool dma_get_attr(unsigned long attr, unsigned long attrs)
> +{
> +	return !!(attr & attrs);
> +}

I'd just kill this helper, much easier to simply open code it in the
caller.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1410826

On 05/31/2016 07:04 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
>> DMA attributes passed by pointer.  Thus the pointer can point to const
>> data.  However the attributes do not have to be a bitfield. Instead
>> unsigned long will do fine:
>>
>> 1. This is just simpler.  Both in terms of reading the code and setting
>>    attributes.  Instead of initializing local attributes on the stack and
>>    passing pointer to it to dma_set_attr(), just set the bits.
>>
>> 2. It brings safeness and checking for const correctness because the
>>    attributes are passed by value.
>>
>> Please have in mind that this is RFC, not finished yet.  Only ARM and
>> ARM64 are fixed (and not everywhere).
>> However other API users also have to be converted which is quite
>> intrusive.  I would rather avoid it until the overall approach is
>> accepted.
> 
> This looks great!  Please continue doing the full conversion.
> 
>> +/**
>> + * List of possible attributes associated with a DMA mapping. The semantics
>> + * of each attribute should be defined in Documentation/DMA-attributes.txt.
>> + */
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_WRITE_BARRIER		BIT(1)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_WEAK_ORDERING		BIT(2)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_WRITE_COMBINE		BIT(3)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_NON_CONSISTENT		BIT(4)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_NO_KERNEL_MAPPING	BIT(5)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC		BIT(6)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS	BIT(7)
>> +#define DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_SINGLE_PAGES	BIT(8)
> 
> No really for this patch, but I would much prefer to document them next
> to the code in the long run.  Also I really think these BIT() macros
> are a distraction compared to the (1 << N) notation.

Not much difference to me but maybe plain number:
...	0x01u
...	0x02u
?

> 
>> +/**
>> + * dma_get_attr - check for a specific attribute
>> + * @attr: attribute to look for
>> + * @attrs: attributes to check within
>> + */
>> +static inline bool dma_get_attr(unsigned long attr, unsigned long attrs)
>> +{
>> +	return !!(attr & attrs);
>> +}
> 
> I'd just kill this helper, much easier to simply open code it in the
> caller.

Keeping it for now helps reducing the number of changes in the patch.
The patch will be quite big as it has to replace all the uses atomically.

I can get rid of the helper in consecutive patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1410910

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:36:42AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > No really for this patch, but I would much prefer to document them next
> > to the code in the long run.  Also I really think these BIT() macros
> > are a distraction compared to the (1 << N) notation.
> 
> Not much difference to me but maybe plain number:
> ...	0x01u
> ...	0x02u
> ?

I prefer the little bit shifts, but even the explicit values are much
better than the obsfucating macros :)  Anyway, your patch and in the end
all three methods will get the work done.

> > I'd just kill this helper, much easier to simply open code it in the
> > caller.
> 
> Keeping it for now helps reducing the number of changes in the patch.
> The patch will be quite big as it has to replace all the uses atomically.
> 
> I can get rid of the helper in consecutive patch.

Sounds fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web