On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:58:50AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2024 11:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> With a02174c6c885 ("amd/iommu: clean up unused guest iommu related
> >> functions") having removed the sole place where d->g_iommu would be set
> >> to non-NULL, guest_iommu_add_ppr_log() will unconditionally bail the
> >> latest from its 2nd if(). With it dropped, all other stuff in the file
> >> is unused, too. Delete iommu_guest.c altogether.
> >>
> >> Further delete struct guest{_buffer,_dev_table,_iommu{,_msi}} as well as
> >> struct mmio_reg for being unused with the unused g_iommu also dropped
> >> from struct arch_iommu.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> I wasn't sure how far to further go with removing the body of > >> parse_ppr_log_entry(), or perhaps even the entire function, and then > >> further up to all PPR logging code. Hence why for now I've merely > >> commented out the function call into the file being deleted (which of > >> course Misra isn't going to like). Thoughts / suggestions? > >> > >> I further wonder whether set_iommu_guest_translation_control() should > >> have been invoked independent of guest-IOMMU actually being enabled. IOW > >> that may want purging, too. Along these lines iommuv2_enabled may also > >> want dropping, for not having any consumer left. Much like has_viommu() > >> and then also {XEN_,}X86_EMU_IOMMU, i.e. going as far as affecting the > >> public interface. I would drop it all. The public interface part is not stable anyway, as it's a domctl, but I would be fine if you want to keep the X86_EMU_IOMMU. Thanks, Roger.
