[PATCH 2/5] dma-direct: add an explicit dma_direct_get_required_mask

Robin Murphy robin.murphy at arm.com
Fri Sep 28 01:35:21 AEST 2018


On 27/09/18 16:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 03:12:25PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> +u64 dma_direct_get_required_mask(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +	u64 max_dma = phys_to_dma_direct(dev, (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> +
>>> +	return (1ULL << (fls64(max_dma) - 1)) * 2 - 1;
>>
>> I think that may as well just use __fls64() - it seems reasonable to assume
>> max_dma > 0. Otherwise,
> 
> Is there any good reason to micro-optimize given that this isn't
> a fast path?

Not at all, I wasn't even thinking in terms of optimisation other than 
in terms of number of source characters and levels of parentheses.

But more importantly I was also being a big idiot because no matter how 
much I have the fls()/__fls() thing in mind, __fls64() doesn't actually 
exist. Nitpick rescinded!

Robin.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list