On May 06, 2016 10:24 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> On x86, iommu_get_ops() BUG()s when running on non-Intel, non-AMD
> hardware. While, with our current code, that's a correct prerequisite
> assumption for IOMMU presence, this is wrong on systems without IOMMU.
> Hence iommu_enabled (and alike) checks should be done prior to calling that
> function, not after.
>
> Also move iommu_suspend() next to iommu_resume() - it escapes me why
> iommu_do_domctl() had got put between the two.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
> @@ -337,11 +337,16 @@ int __init iommu_setup(void)
> return rc;
> }
>
> +void iommu_suspend()
> +{
> + if ( iommu_enabled )
> + iommu_get_ops()->suspend();
> +}
> +
What about this style:
+void iommu_suspend()
+{
+ if ( iommu_enabled &&
+ iommu_get_ops()->suspend )
+ iommu_get_ops()->suspend();
+}
+
At least for AMD, not all of the .callback are initialized.
> void iommu_crash_shutdown(void)
> {
> - const struct iommu_ops *ops = iommu_get_ops();
> if ( iommu_enabled )
> - ops->crash_shutdown();
> + iommu_get_ops()->crash_shutdown();
> iommu_enabled = iommu_intremap = iommu_intpost = 0;
btw, is this line still a code style issue?
}
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
