On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 10:14:48AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2016-07-05 10:19, Peter Xu wrote: > > Remove VT-d calls in common q35 codes. Instead, we provide a general > > find_add_as() for x86-iommu type. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > > --- > > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 15 ++++++++------- > > include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h | 5 ----- > > include/hw/i386/x86-iommu.h | 3 +++ > > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > You claim to remove something from "common q35 code", but I don't see > changes to it. Instead, the patch introduces a method that seems to > remain unused outside the implementing class (I just grep'ed your tree). > Anything missing?
Right. The commit message lost its point after I did the rebase to Marcel's "-device intel_iommu" patches... Thanks for pointing it out. Before the rebase, there is one q35_host_dma_iommu() in pc_q35.c, and originally this patch did remove something from q35. While in Marcel's commit (621d983a1f), q35_host_dma_iommu() is renamed to vtd_host_dma_iommu(), and it's put inside intel_iommu.c. After that, this commit message stopped making sense. So I think at least the commit message of this patch could be fixed into something like: "Introduce common find_add_as() interface for x86-iommu." And if I now see this... A better solution is to provide a more common interface directly in x86-iommu.c to find address spaces, and let Intel/AMD IOMMUs share this functionality. After all, we are doing merely the same thing to maintain namespaces in both Intel/AMD IOMMUs (vtd_find_add_as() and bridge_host_amdvi()). So, do you (and mst?) think I should respin to a v12, or we can first fix commit message of this patch, then I post another patch basd on this series for a better cleanup? Thanks, -- peterx
