Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] IOMMU/MMU: enhance the call trees of IOMMU unmapping and mapping

["Xu, Quan" <quan.xu@intel.com>]

On May 10, 2016 4:44 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> > @@ -638,13 +638,20 @@ p2m_remove_page(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
> unsigned long gfn, unsigned long mfn,
> >      mfn_t mfn_return;
> >      p2m_type_t t;
> >      p2m_access_t a;
> > +    int rc = 0, ret;
> >
> >      if ( !paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain) )
> >      {
> >          if ( need_iommu(p2m->domain) )
> >              for ( i = 0; i < (1 << page_order); i++ )
> > -                iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, mfn + i);
> > -        return 0;
> > +            {
> > +               ret = iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, mfn + i);
> > +
> > +               if ( !rc )
> > +                   rc = ret;
> > +            }
> > +
> > +        return rc;
> >      }
> 
> In code like this, btw., restricting the scope of "ret" to the innermost block
> would help future readers see immediately that the value of "ret" is of no
> further interest outside of that block.
> 
> Having reached the end of the patch, I'm missing the __must_check additions
> that you said you would do in this new iteration. Is there any reason for their
> absence? Did I overlook something?
> 

Sorry, I did overlook something.
Checked the v2/v3 replies again, I still can't find it.
I only add the __must_check annotation for these functions you point out.
Do I need to add the __must_check annotation for these  functions (but not void function) in this patch?

Quan 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel