Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iommu/x86: introduce a generic IVMD/RMRR range validity helper

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:34:59PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.02.2024 16:34, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > IVMD and RMRR ranges are functionally equivalent, and as so could use the 
> > same
> > validity checker.
> > 
> > Move the IVMD to x86 common IOMMU code and adjust the function to take a 
> > pair
> > of [start, end] mfn parameters.
> > 
> > So far only the AMD-Vi side is adjusted to use the newly introduced helper, 
> > the
> > VT-d side will be adjusted in a further change.
> > 
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> with one minor remark:
> 
> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/x86/iommu.c
> > @@ -792,6 +792,52 @@ static int __init cf_check adjust_irq_affinities(void)
> >  }
> >  __initcall(adjust_irq_affinities);
> >  
> > +bool __init iommu_unity_region_ok(const char *prefix, mfn_t start, mfn_t 
> > end)
> > +{
> > +    mfn_t addr;
> > +
> > +    if ( e820_all_mapped(mfn_to_maddr(start), mfn_to_maddr(end) + 
> > PAGE_SIZE,
> > +                         E820_RESERVED) )
> > +        return true;
> > +
> > +    printk(XENLOG_WARNING "%s: [%#" PRI_mfn " ,%#" PRI_mfn
> > +           "] is not (entirely) in reserved memory\n",
> 
> Would you mind if I re-flowed this to
> 
>     printk(XENLOG_WARNING
>            "%s: [%#" PRI_mfn " ,%#" PRI_mfn "] is not (entirely) in reserved 
> memory\n",
> 
> while committing?

Sure.  FWIW, when the line contains format specifiers I take that as a
point where splitting might be acceptable, since it already prevents
proper grepping.  Will try to remember to attempt to not split the
line.

Thanks, Roger.