On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:36:25 +0200
Cornelia Huck [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:08:19 +0200
Halil Pasic [off-list ref] wrote:

[..]

Two things:
- The call path goes from the vcdev to the vdev, then back to the vcdev
  and then to the cdev. Going from the vcdev to the cdev  directly
  eliminates the roundtrip via the vdev, which I think does not add
  anything.
- I prefer
	variable = function_returning_a_pointer(...);
  over
	function_setting_a_variable(..., variable);
  The latter obscures the fact that we change the value of the
  variable, unless named very obviously.

I understand. Here it's especially bad because what looks like a
function is actually a macro so it ain't even fn(..., &variable) but
just fn(..., variable). I guess I'm a bit desensitized towards the latter
because of my c++ background.

quoted

I will change this for v4 as you requested. Again sorry for missing it!

np, can happen.

Thanks for the explanation. I will use

ccw_device_dma_zalloc() directly in v4.

Regards,
Halil