Hi Joe,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:08:38PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:36 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > + static const char * const feat_str[] = {
> > + "PreF", "PPR", "X2APIC", "NX", "GT", "[5]",
> > + "IA", "GA", "HE", "PC", NULL
> > + };
> > + struct amd_iommu *iommu;
> > +
> > + for_each_iommu(iommu) {
> > + int i;
> > + pr_info("AMD-Vi: Found IOMMU at %s cap 0x%hx\n",
> > + dev_name(&iommu->dev->dev), iommu->cap_ptr);
> > + if (iommu->cap & (1 << IOMMU_CAP_EFR)) {
> > + pr_info("AMD-Vi: Extended features: ");
> > + for (i = 0; feat_str[i]; ++i)
> > + if (iommu_feature(iommu, (1ULL << i)))
> > + pr_cont(" %s", feat_str[i]);
>
> I think this should use {} around the for loop
> and this would be better as:
>
> static const char * const feat_str[] = {
> "PreF", "PPR", "X2APIC", "NX", "GT", "[5]",
> "IA", "GA", "HE", "PC"
> };
> []
> for (i = 0; ARRAY_SIZE(feat_str); i++) {
> if (iommu_feature(iommu, (1ULL << i)))
> pr_cont(" %s", feat_str[i]);
> }
Changed that, thanks.
> I don't see the utility of the separate function and
> this could just be inlined in the calling function.
Well, the benefit is that the function call can be easily moved to
another place if necessary. So I left the printks in the seperate
function. The compiler will inline them anyway.
Thanks,
Joerg
--
AMD Operating System Research Center
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo
Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
