On 08.02.2024 18:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:56:36PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> All callers only care about boolean outcome. For this there's no point
>> in allocating a duplicate of the respective DRHD structure; a simple
>> boolean suffices (which eventually may wantg to become a count, such
> ^ want
>> that the "any ATS devices assigned state" can also clear again). With
>> that boolean, remove respective parameters from internal helper
>> functions right away, as those have access to the flag through another
>> parameter.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>
> AFAICT the intention is that this is a non-functional change?
No functional effect intended, yes. Added such a sentence.
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
>> @@ -65,8 +65,6 @@ struct acpi_drhd_unit *ioapic_to_drhd(un
>> struct acpi_drhd_unit *hpet_to_drhd(unsigned int hpet_id);
>> struct acpi_rhsa_unit *drhd_to_rhsa(const struct acpi_drhd_unit *drhd);
>>
>> -struct acpi_drhd_unit *find_ats_dev_drhd(struct vtd_iommu *iommu);
>> -
>> int ats_device(const struct pci_dev *, const struct acpi_drhd_unit *);
>>
>> int dev_invalidate_iotlb(struct vtd_iommu *iommu, u16 did,
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
>> @@ -624,8 +624,7 @@ int cf_check vtd_flush_iotlb_reg(
>> }
>>
>> static int __must_check iommu_flush_iotlb_global(struct vtd_iommu *iommu,
>> - bool
>> flush_non_present_entry,
>> - bool flush_dev_iotlb)
>> + bool
>> flush_non_present_entry)
>> {
>> int status;
>>
>> @@ -633,7 +632,7 @@ static int __must_check iommu_flush_iotl
>> vtd_ops_preamble_quirk(iommu);
>>
>> status = iommu->flush.iotlb(iommu, 0, 0, 0, DMA_TLB_GLOBAL_FLUSH,
>> - flush_non_present_entry, flush_dev_iotlb);
>> + flush_non_present_entry,
>> iommu->flush_dev_iotlb);
>
> Any reason to not also remove the parameter from here also? As the handler
> gets iommu passed as the first parameter anyway.
Indeed, yet then the patch would have grown quite a bit. I think I
meant to have a respective post-commit-message remark, but then
forgot to actually put one there. Once (if) this change has gone in,
a follow-on patch could further tidy tings. (The "right away" in the
description was kind of meant to indicate that.)
Jan
