>>> On 11.05.16 at 08:47, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> 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.
Without you telling us what exactly you checked, I can't respond
to this. Extending from the reply just sent to patch 3(?) and for
the avoidance of doubt, you now obviously also need to
__must_check-annotate the function pointer (to match the desire
of wanting to never lose such an annotation on the way back up
the call tree).
> If yes, I'll add __must_check for ARM one as well.
Of course.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
