On 05/07/2024 10:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless this
> email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] intel_iommu: make types match
>>
>> From: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>>
>> The 'level' field in vtd_iotlb_key is an unsigned integer.
>> We don't need to store level as an int in vtd_lookup_iotlb.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>> index 37c21a0aec..be0cb39b5c 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static VTDIOTLBEntry
>> *vtd_lookup_iotlb(IntelIOMMUState *s, uint16_t source_id,
>> {
>> struct vtd_iotlb_key key;
>> VTDIOTLBEntry *entry;
>> - int level;
>> + unsigned level;
> Will it bring any issue if int is used?
It shouldn't, but it might trigger static analyzer warnings.
Do you want me to drop the patch?
>
>> for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < VTD_SL_PML4_LEVEL; level++) {
>> key.gfn = vtd_get_iotlb_gfn(addr, level);
>> --
>> 2.45.2
