On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:04 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rather than using static int max_dma_bits, this
> can be coverted to use as macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.li...@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>

If it is still not late, can we get this patch in queue for 5.4 ?

> ---
>  drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> index ae1df49..d1eced5 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>  #include <asm/xen/page-coherent.h>
>
>  #include <trace/events/swiotlb.h>
> +#define MAX_DMA_BITS 32
>  /*
>   * Used to do a quick range check in swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single and
>   * swiotlb_tbl_sync_single_*, to see if the memory was in fact allocated by 
> this
> @@ -114,8 +115,6 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int max_dma_bits = 32;
> -
>  static int
>  xen_swiotlb_fixup(void *buf, size_t size, unsigned long nslabs)
>  {
> @@ -135,7 +134,7 @@ static int is_xen_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr_t dma_addr)
>                                 p + (i << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
>                                 get_order(slabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT),
>                                 dma_bits, &dma_handle);
> -               } while (rc && dma_bits++ < max_dma_bits);
> +               } while (rc && dma_bits++ < MAX_DMA_BITS);
>                 if (rc)
>                         return rc;
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to