On 9/6/19 10:43 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 9/6/19 10:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:52:12AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>> We need nop definitions of these two for x86. >>>> >>>> Everything builds now but that's probably because the calls are under >>>> 'if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))' which is always false so compiler >>>> optimized is out. I don't think we should rely on that. >>> That is how a lot of the kernel works. Provide protypes only for code >>> that is semantically compiled, but can't ever be called due to >>> IS_ENABLED() checks. It took me a while to get used to it, but it >>> actually is pretty nice as the linker does the work for you to check >>> that it really is never called. Much better than say a BUILD_BUG_ON(). >> >> (with corrected Juergen's email) >> >> I know about IS_ENABLED() but I didn't realize that this is allowed for >> compile-time inlines and such as well. >> >> Anyway, for non-ARM bits >> >> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> > Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > > as well. > > Albeit folks have tested this under x86 Xen with 'swiotlb=force' right?
Yes, I did. -boris > > I can test it myself but it will take a couple of days. >> If this goes via Xen tree then the first couple of patches need an ack >> from ARM maintainers. >> >> -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
