On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:02:51 +0200 "h...@lst.de" <h...@lst.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:58:13PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > > > This patch trades off making many of the core swiotlb APIs take > > > an additional argument in order to avoid duplicating calls to > > > swiotlb_find_pool(). The current code seems rather wasteful in > > > making 6 calls per round-trip, but I'm happy to accept others' > > > judgment as to whether getting rid of the waste is worth the > > > additional code complexity. > > > > Quick ping on this RFC. Is there any interest in moving forward? > > Quite a few lines of code are affected because of adding the > > additional "pool" argument to several functions, but the change > > is conceptually pretty simple. > > Yes, this looks sensible to me. I'm tempted to apply it. Oh, right. The idea is good, but I was not able to reply immediately and then forgot about it. For the record, I considered an alternative: Call swiotlb_* functions unconditionally and bail out early if the pool is NULL. But it's no good, because is_swiotlb_buffer() can be inlined, so this approach would replace a quick check with a function call. And then there's also swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single()... I have only a very minor suggestion: Could is_swiotlb_buffer() be renamed now that it no longer returns a bool? OTOH I have no good immediate idea myself. Petr T
