On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:27:43PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 06:33:31PM +0800, Liu, Yi L wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > -void pci_setup_iommu(PCIBus *bus, PCIIOMMUFunc fn, void *opaque)
> > +void pci_device_notify_iommu(PCIDevice *dev, PCIDevNotifyType type)
> > {
> > - bus->iommu_fn = fn;
> > + PCIBus *bus = PCI_BUS(pci_get_bus(dev));
> > + PCIBus *iommu_bus = bus;
> > +
> > + while (iommu_bus && !iommu_bus->iommu_fn && iommu_bus->parent_dev) {
> > + iommu_bus = PCI_BUS(pci_get_bus(iommu_bus->parent_dev));
> > + }
> > + if (iommu_bus && iommu_bus->notify_fn) {
> > + iommu_bus->notify_fn(bus,
> > + iommu_bus->iommu_opaque,
> > + dev->devfn,
> > + type);
>
> We didn't really check the return code for notify function. What if
> it failed? If we care, we'd better handle the failure; or we can just
> define the notify_fn() to return void (now it's int).
Good catch. I think we need to handle failure. User should be aware of
it. I'll try to add accordingly in next version.
> > + }
> > + return;
>
> I saw many places in the series that you added explicit return for
> "void" return-typed functions. IMHO all of them can be dropped.
Thanks for spotting it, would fix them in next version.
Regards,
Yi Liu
