On 25.02.2025 12:05, Mykyta Poturai wrote: > 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? > > 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?
I'd be okay with that; Arm folks also need to be, though. Jan
