Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:51:53 +0800 | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v10 1/5] iommu/vt-d: add pci_dev parameter to qi_submit_sync and refactor callers | | From | Ethan Zhao <> |
| |
On 1/10/2024 12:59 PM, Baolu Lu wrote: > On 12/29/23 1:02 AM, Ethan Zhao wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com> > > Please don't leave the message body empty. You should describe why do > you want to add the change in this patch. Seems the description part was lost, will append next version. > >> --- >> drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 26 +++++------------ >> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h | 17 +++++------ >> drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c | 2 +- >> drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c | 11 ++----- >> drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 13 ++++----- >> 6 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> index 23cb80d62a9a..3d661f2b7946 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> @@ -1344,7 +1344,7 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu >> *iommu, int index, int wait_index) >> * can be part of the submission but it will not be polled for >> completion. >> */ >> int qi_submit_sync(struct intel_iommu *iommu, struct qi_desc *desc, >> - unsigned int count, unsigned long options) >> + unsigned int count, unsigned long options, struct pci_dev >> *pdev) > > How about adding a bit in options parameter to tell whether the @pdev is > valid?
well, checking the option bit or checking pdev == NULL, use one parameter
to describe another one is common function defination method if one
parameter couldn't self-describe.
This case, we always check pdev(one checking), and if we check option bit first, then have
to check pdev again (one or two checking). I prefer checking pdev only.
Thanks,
Ethan
> > Best regards, > baolu
|  |