On 24/03/2022 11:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 24/03/2022 09:31, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
...
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com Cc: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Cc: Lucas De Marchi lucas.demarchi@intel.com
Typed up how I see it - bash away.
So is intel_vtd_active() so performance critical that it needs to be inline?
We're passing struct drm_i915_private * everywhere we can, and it just feels silly to use struct drm_device * to avoid the include.
Static inlines considered harmful. :p
Same as it is ;), and gee, who was it that he said he was just trying to declutter i915_drv.h.. ;p
Not at the cost of clarity elsewhere!
To be clear now you oppose intel_vtd_active taking struct device? I thought you expressed general agreement when I presented the idea in the previous thread.
I don't mind hugely to go either way, but I also don't see how taking struct device makes anything unclear. (I only think intel_vtd_run_as_guest is really wrong in this story but that's old news.)
And if I make it take i915 then I would want to name it i915_vtd_active as well. But then you wouldn't like that.
Should we just stuff all this into i915_utils for now, as I think Lucas suggested? Static inline or not, I don't care.
Regards,
Tvrtko