On 10.02.25 12:46, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 10.02.2025 11:30, Mykyta Poturai wrote: >> --- a/xen/include/xen/iommu.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/iommu.h >> @@ -238,6 +238,14 @@ int iommu_do_dt_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, >> struct domain *d, >> */ >> int iommu_remove_dt_device(struct dt_device_node *np); >> >> +/* >> + * Status code indicating that DT device cannot be added to the IOMMU >> + * or removed from it because the IOMMU is disabled or the device is not >> + * connected to it. >> + */ >> + >> +#define DT_NO_IOMMU 1 > > While an improvement, it still isn't clear whose "status code" this is. > The #define is effectively hanging in the air, from all I can tell. And > from it not being a normal error code it is pretty clear that it better > would have only very narrow use. > > Also can you please omit an interspersing blank line when the comment > is specifically tied to a definition or declaration? > > Jan
Hi Jan What would you say about removing this status code entirely and returning something like -ENODEV instead, with adding special handling for this return to the callers where needed? -- Mykyta
