On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:58:50AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2024 11:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> With a02174c6c885 ("amd/iommu: clean up unused guest iommu related
> >> functions") having removed the sole place where d->g_iommu would be set
> >> to non-NULL, guest_iommu_add_ppr_log() will unconditionally bail the
> >> latest from its 2nd if(). With it dropped, all other stuff in the file
> >> is unused, too. Delete iommu_guest.c altogether.
> >>
> >> Further delete struct guest{_buffer,_dev_table,_iommu{,_msi}} as well as
> >> struct mmio_reg for being unused with the unused g_iommu also dropped
> >> from struct arch_iommu.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
> >> ---
> >> I wasn't sure how far to further go with removing the body of
> >> parse_ppr_log_entry(), or perhaps even the entire function, and then
> >> further up to all PPR logging code. Hence why for now I've merely
> >> commented out the function call into the file being deleted (which of
> >> course Misra isn't going to like). Thoughts / suggestions?
> >>
> >> I further wonder whether set_iommu_guest_translation_control() should
> >> have been invoked independent of guest-IOMMU actually being enabled. IOW
> >> that may want purging, too. Along these lines iommuv2_enabled may also
> >> want dropping, for not having any consumer left. Much like has_viommu()
> >> and then also {XEN_,}X86_EMU_IOMMU, i.e. going as far as affecting the
> >> public interface.
I would drop it all. The public interface part is not stable anyway,
as it's a domctl, but I would be fine if you want to keep the X86_EMU_IOMMU.
Thanks, Roger.
