On (03/24/15 18:16), David Miller wrote:
> Generally this looks fine to me.
>
> But about patch #2, I see no reason to have multiple iommu_pool_hash
> tables. Even from a purely sparc perspective, we can always just do
> with just one of them.
>
> Furthermore, you can even probably move it down
From: Sowmini Varadhan
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:10:27 -0400
> Deltas from patchv5:
> - removed iommu_tbl_ops, and instead pass the ->flush_all as
> an indirection to iommu_tbl_pool_init()
> - only invoke ->flush_all when there is no large_pool, based on
> the assumption that large-pool usage
