Re: [PATCH] cleanup swiotlb.c a bit

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2005-01-07 06:38:07
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:45:12 -0800, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> said:

  Jesse> This patch mostly cleans up trailing whitespace

That's OK, and really needed.  I was tempted to do that with my last
swiotlb fix, but didn't want to mix formatting cleanups with real
fixes.

  Jesse> and long lines

Well, I don't like how you "fixed" some of them and I continue to be
of the opinion that 100 cols is OK (yes, I know that somebody managed
to get the 80 cols into the kernel formatting document, but that
doesn't change reality...).

For example, something like this:

+	io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs *
+					       (1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT));

I find more readable if it's formatted as:

	io_tlb_start = alloc_bootmem_low_pages(io_tlb_nslabs
					       * (1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT));

  Jesse> gets rid of some unnecessary {} blocks.

The blocks where there to indicate locking.  I find that useful, even
if Andrew (and perhaps others) disagree.

  Jesse> Does it look ok to you David?  I was thinking it might be
  Jesse> nice to abstract it slightly more to make the swiotlb
  Jesse> functions callable from a platform's regular PCI mapping
  Jesse> routines as needed, since swiotlb assumes that physical
  Jesse> addresses and bus addresses are the same.

Well, it probably should move outside of the ia64 tree anyhow.  The
way x86_64 includes swiotlb.c at the moment is just absolutely gross.

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Jan 6 14:45:35 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST