On 24.10.2023 16:01, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_init.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_init.c
> @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ static void iommu_check_ppr_log(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->lock, flags);
> }
>
> -static void cf_check do_amd_iommu_irq(void *unused)
> +static void cf_check do_amd_iommu_irq(void *data)
> {
> struct amd_iommu *iommu;
>
> @@ -702,6 +702,11 @@ static void cf_check do_amd_iommu_irq(void *unused)
> return;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Formal parameter is deliberately unused.
> + */
> + (void) data;
Besides me thinking that the original way of expressing things was more
clear (and still even machine-recognizable), there are (nit) also style
issues here: The comment is malformed and there shouldn't be a blank
between the cast operator and the expression it applies to.
Jan
