On May 10, 2016 5:07 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> > @@ -604,15 +604,15 @@ static int iommu_flush_iotlb(struct domain *d,
> unsigned long gfn,
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > -static void iommu_flush_iotlb_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
> > - unsigned int page_count)
> > +static int iommu_flush_iotlb_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
> > + unsigned int page_count)
> > {
> > - iommu_flush_iotlb(d, gfn, 1, page_count);
> > + return iommu_flush_iotlb(d, gfn, 1, page_count);
> > }
> >
> > -static void iommu_flush_iotlb_all(struct domain *d)
> > +static int iommu_flush_iotlb_all(struct domain *d)
> > {
> > - iommu_flush_iotlb(d, INVALID_GFN, 0, 0);
> > + return iommu_flush_iotlb(d, INVALID_GFN, 0, 0);
> > }
>
> As already indicated in a reply to an earlier patch, despite what was said on
> the
> earlier version I think we should have __must_check here
If the static one is initialized for .callback, is it really necessary to add
__must_check here?
I check it with compiler, and it is ok when I didn't add __must_check here.
If yes, I'll add __must_check for ARM one as well.
> and ...
>
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h
> > @@ -179,8 +179,8 @@ struct iommu_ops {
> > void (*resume)(void);
> > void (*share_p2m)(struct domain *d);
> > void (*crash_shutdown)(void);
> > - void (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned int
> page_count);
> > - void (*iotlb_flush_all)(struct domain *d);
> > + int (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned int
> page_count);
> > + int (*iotlb_flush_all)(struct domain *d);
>
> ... here.
Yes, it is necessary here.
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
