Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU - move valid_dma_direction into the callers

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:35:07AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Jon Mason wrote:
> > > >From Andi Kleen's comments on the original Calgary patch, move
> > > valid_dma_direction into the calling functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jdmason@us.ibm.com>
> > Even though BUG_ON() includes unlikely(), this introduces additional 
> > tests in very hot paths.
>
> Are they really very hot? I mean if you're calling the DMA API, you're
> about to frob the hardware or have already frobbed it - does this
> check really matter?

When you are adding a check that will _never_ be hit in production, to 
the _hottest_ paths in the kernel, you can be assured it matters...


> > _Why_ do we need this at all?
>
> It was helpful for us during the dma-ops work and Calgary bringup and
> Andi requested that we move it from Calgary to common code. I think
> we're fine with dropping it if that's the consensus, but it did catch
> a few bugs early on and the cost is tiny.

Key phrase:  "early on"

These checks will only be useful during _early_ development of a new DMA 
platform.  For _100%_ of the real world users, these checks are useless. 
 Not 99%, 100%.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/