On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:42:37 +0100 Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 06:44:19 -0700 > Jacob Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Use combined macro for_each_svm_dev() to simplify SVM device > > iteration. > > > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c | 79 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 39 > > insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > > index 9cbcc1f..66d98e1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > > @@ -225,6 +225,9 @@ static const struct mmu_notifier_ops > > intel_mmuops = { > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(pasid_mutex); > > static LIST_HEAD(global_svm_list); > > +#define for_each_svm_dev() \ > > + list_for_each_entry(sdev, &svm->devs, list) \ > > + if (dev == sdev->dev) \ > > Could we make this macro less opaque and have it take the svm and dev > as arguments? > sounds good, it makes the code more readable.
