On 17.07.2025 09:31, Andrii Sultanov wrote:
> Following a similar change to amd_iommu struct, make two more structs
> take pci_sbdf_t directly instead of seg and bdf separately. This lets us
> drop several conversions from the latter to the former and simplifies
> several comparisons and assignments.
>
> Bloat-o-meter reports:
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/10 up/down: 256/-320 (-64)
> Function old new delta
> _einittext 22092 22348 +256
> parse_ivrs_hpet 248 245 -3
> amd_iommu_detect_one_acpi 876 868 -8
> iov_supports_xt 275 264 -11
> amd_iommu_read_ioapic_from_ire 344 332 -12
> amd_setup_hpet_msi 237 224 -13
> amd_iommu_ioapic_update_ire 575 555 -20
> reserve_unity_map_for_device 453 424 -29
> _hvm_dpci_msi_eoi 160 128 -32
> amd_iommu_get_supported_ivhd_type 86 30 -56
> parse_ivrs_table 3966 3830 -136
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Sultanov <sultanovand...@gmail.com>
Here the unspecific subject prefix is actually a problem: It remains unclear
what component(s) is (are) being altered.
> @@ -746,8 +744,9 @@ static u16 __init parse_ivhd_device_special(
> const struct acpi_ivrs_device8c *special, u16 seg,
> u16 header_length, u16 block_length, struct amd_iommu *iommu)
> {
> - u16 dev_length, bdf;
> + u16 dev_length;
Nit: Preferably switch to uint16_t while touching such a line.
With the adjustments (which can be done while committing, I guess):
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> @@ -780,8 +779,7 @@ static u16 __init parse_ivhd_device_special(
> */
> for ( idx = 0; idx < nr_ioapic_sbdf; idx++ )
> {
> - if ( ioapic_sbdf[idx].bdf == bdf &&
> - ioapic_sbdf[idx].seg == seg &&
> + if ( ioapic_sbdf[idx].sbdf.sbdf == sbdf.sbdf &&
Just to mention - there are of course a lot of "sbdf" on lines like this now.
We may want to reconsider naming of the two global variables (not here, but
in general).
Jan
