On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Gary R Hook <gary.h...@amd.com> wrote:

> +       default n

Redundant


> +#include <linux/pci.h>
> +#include <linux/iommu.h>
> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>

Keep in order?

> +#include "amd_iommu_proto.h"
> +#include "amd_iommu_types.h"

> +/* DebugFS helpers */
> +#define        OBUFP           (obuf + oboff)
> +#define        OBUFLEN         obuflen
> +#define        OBUFSPC         (OBUFLEN - oboff)
> +#define        OSCNPRINTF(fmt, ...) \
> +               scnprintf(OBUFP, OBUFSPC, fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__)

I don't see any advantages of this. Other way around, they will simple
makes things hard to read an understand in place.


> +       for (i = start ; i <= end ; i++)

Missed {}

> +               if ((amd_iommu_dev_table[i].data[0] ^ 0x3)
> +                   || amd_iommu_dev_table[i].data[1])
> +                       n++;
> +       return n;
> +}

> +
> +static ssize_t amd_iommu_debugfs_dtecount_read(struct file *filp,
> +                                         char __user *ubuf,
> +                                         size_t count, loff_t *offp)
> +{
> +       struct amd_iommu *iommu = filp->private_data;

> +       unsigned int obuflen = 512;

Sounds like way too much.

> +       if (!iommu)
> +               return 0;

When this possible?

> +       obuf = kmalloc(OBUFLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!obuf)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       n = amd_iommu_count_valid_dtes(0, 0xFFFF);
> +       oboff += OSCNPRINTF("%d\n", n);

> +       return ret;
> +}


> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@
>  #define ACPI_DEVFLAG_ATSDIS             0x10000000
>
>  #define LOOP_TIMEOUT   100000
> +
>  /*
>   * ACPI table definitions
>   *

Doesn't belong to the patch.

> +#endif
> +
> +

Extra unneeded line.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to