On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 9:09 AM Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 11:52:45AM +1300, Barry Song wrote: > > From: Barry Song <[email protected]> > > > > Instead of performing a flush per SG entry, issue all cache > > operations first and then flush once. This ultimately benefits > > __dma_sync_sg_for_cpu() and __dma_sync_sg_for_device(). > > > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]> > > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]> > > Cc: Robin Murphy <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ada Couprie Diaz <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> > > Cc: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ryan Roberts <[email protected]> > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <[email protected]> > > --- > > kernel/dma/direct.c | 14 +++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > <...> > > > - if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) { > > + if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) > > arch_sync_dma_for_device(paddr, sg->length, > > dir); > > - arch_sync_dma_flush(); > > - } > > } > > + if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) > > + arch_sync_dma_flush(); > > This patch should be squashed into the previous one. You introduced > arch_sync_dma_flush() there, and now you are placing it elsewhere.
Hi Leon, The previous patch replaces all arch_sync_dma_for_* calls with arch_sync_dma_for_* plus arch_sync_dma_flush(), without any functional change. The subsequent patches then implement the actual batching. I feel this is a better approach for reviewing each change independently. Otherwise, the previous patch would be too large. Thanks Barry
