[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <312be452-84ab-4cc8-b468-b6519d9abfa9@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:25:32 +0700
From: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, joro@...tes.org,
robin.murphy@....com, vasant.hegde@....com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
jon.grimm@....com, santosh.shukla@....com, pandoh@...gle.com,
kumaranand@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function to update
256-bit DTE
On 10/7/2024 9:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 04:13:49AM +0000, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> +static void write_dte_upper128(struct dev_table_entry *ptr, struct dev_table_entry *new)
>> +{
>> + struct dev_table_entry old = {};
>> +
>> + do {
>> + old.data128[1] = ptr->data128[1];
>> + new->data[2] &= ~DTE_DATA2_INTR_MASK;
>> + new->data[2] |= old.data[2] & (DTE_DATA2_INTR_MASK | DTE_DATA2_RESV_MASK);
>
> Why preserve the reserved bits? Shouldn't they be reserved by forced
> to 0? Should have a comment explaining this
You are correct.
>> +static void iommu_flush_dte_sync(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u16 devid)
>> +{
>
> You might consider re-ordering to avoid the function forward
> declaration.
This will require moving a lot of other functions as well. We will
consider this in overall clean up later.
Thanks,
Suravee
> Looks fine otherwise
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists