[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wht4inbTVVMt2TNDxR_cVjSNaBU3JYyKtRMVovWePb65g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:07:46 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc: iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] IOMMU fix for 5.10 (-final)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:12 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Please pull this one-liner AMD IOMMU fix for 5.10. It's actually a fix
> for a fix, where the size of the interrupt remapping table was increased
> but a related constant for the size of the interrupt table was forgotten.
Pulled.
However, why didn't this then add some sanity checking for the two
different #defines to be in sync?
IOW, something like
#define AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT 9
#define MAX_IRQS_PER_TABLE (1 << AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT)
#define DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN ((u64)AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT << 1)
or whatever. Hmm?
That way this won't happen again, but perhaps equally importantly the
linkage will be more clear, and there won't be those random constants.
Naming above is probably garbage - I assume there's some actual
architectural name for that irq table length field in the DTE?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists