On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 09:52:05AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> 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.

Don't worry about it. Your patches are small enough.

> 
> Thanks
> Barry

Reply via email to