From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750911AbdALOVr (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:47 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:55752 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750731AbdALOVq (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:21:39 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Suravee Suthikulpanit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, joro@8bytes.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/amd: Introduce amd_iommu_get_num_iommus() Message-ID: <20170112142139.5vpivrho6zbttitf@pd.tnic> References: <1484019227-11473-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1484019227-11473-7-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1484019227-11473-7-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:33:46PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > This patch introduces amd_iommu_get_num_iommus(). This is intended for There's that "This patch" again... but you get the idea :) > Perf AMD IOMMU driver. > > Cc: Joerg Roedel > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit > --- > arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h | 2 ++ > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c | 7 ++++++- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h b/arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h > index 342716e..381f1c4 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h > +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ > #define PC_MAX_SPEC_CNTRS 16 > > /* amd_iommu_init.c external support functions */ > +extern int amd_iommu_get_num_iommus(void); > + > extern bool amd_iommu_pc_supported(void); > > extern u8 amd_iommu_pc_get_max_banks(uint idx); > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c > index c993c77..c3740cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c > @@ -1329,7 +1329,7 @@ static int __init init_iommu_one(struct amd_iommu *iommu, struct ivhd_header *h) > > /* Add IOMMU to internal data structures */ > list_add_tail(&iommu->list, &amd_iommu_list); > - iommu->index = amd_iommus_present++; > + iommu->index = amd_iommus_present++; > > if (unlikely(iommu->index >= MAX_IOMMUS)) { > WARN(1, "AMD-Vi: System has more IOMMUs than supported by this driver\n"); > @@ -2717,6 +2717,11 @@ static struct amd_iommu *get_amd_iommu(uint idx) > return iommu; > } > > +int amd_iommu_get_num_iommus(void) > +{ > + return amd_iommus_present; > +} So this is strange. This amd_iommus_present is used by other iommu code but then you're adding a getter. IMO, it should be cleaner if *all* code is converted to use the getter now and not the naked variable. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.