[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb53a7d3a2ed1092eacfa03d10bd8b6bd999bd3b.1755131672.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 18:25:32 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: <jgg@...dia.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>
CC: <joro@...tes.org>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, <miko.lenczewski@....com>,
<balbirs@...dia.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <smostafa@...gle.com>,
<kevin.tian@...el.com>, <praan@...gle.com>, <zhangzekun11@...wei.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH rfcv1 1/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Clear cmds->num after arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit
None of the callers of arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit() cares about the batch
after a submission. So, it'll be certainly safe to nuke the cmds->num, at
least upon a successful one. This will ease a bit a new wrapper function.
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 2a8b46b948f05..cccf8f52ee0d5 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -974,11 +974,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_add(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
cmds->num++;
}
+/* Clears cmds->num after a successful submission */
static int arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
struct arm_smmu_cmdq_batch *cmds)
{
- return arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(smmu, cmds->cmdq, cmds->cmds,
- cmds->num, true);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(smmu, cmds->cmdq, cmds->cmds,
+ cmds->num, true);
+ if (!ret)
+ cmds->num = 0;
+ return ret;
}
static void arm_smmu_page_response(struct device *dev, struct iopf_fault *unused,
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists