On Fri, 4 May 2018, Gary R Hook wrote: > On 05/04/2018 11:22 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > From: Anna-Maria Gleixner <[email protected]> > > > > When device is already attached to a domain, there is no need to execute > > the domain_flush_tlb_pde(). Therefore move the check if the domain is set > > into attach_device(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 32 ++++++++++---------------------- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > > index f66a5d0b7c62..a801678ae1b4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > > @@ -1878,8 +1878,11 @@ static void clear_dte_entry(u16 devid) > > amd_iommu_apply_erratum_63(devid); > > } > > -static void do_attach(struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data, > > - struct protection_domain *domain) > > +/* > > + * This function does assigns the device visible for the hardware > > + */ > > <grammar cop> > > The prior version of this comment appears 3 times in the file, and is > grammatically problematic every time. Can we simplify it to say > > * This function makes the device visible in the domain > > Or some such? I.e. tidy up the two remaining comments? > > </grammar cop> >
Will fix it in a separate patch - but I only found 2 places where the prior version of this comment appears. Anna-Maria _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
