On 16.03.2025 11:08, Andrii Sultanov wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu.h
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu.h
> @@ -77,8 +77,14 @@ struct amd_iommu {
> struct list_head list;
> spinlock_t lock; /* protect iommu */
>
> - u16 seg;
> - u16 bdf;
> + union {
> + struct {
> + uint16_t bdf;
> + uint16_t seg;
> + };
> + pci_sbdf_t sbdf;
> + };
As before: I'm firmly opposed to this kind of secondary aliasing. It's bad
enough that we have something similar in struct pci_dev.
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_map.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_map.c
> @@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ int cf_check amd_iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(
> * the same alias ID.
> */
> if ( bdf != req && ivrs_mappings[req].iommu &&
> - func(0, 0, PCI_SBDF(seg, req).sbdf, ctxt) )
> + func(0, 0, sbdf.sbdf, ctxt) )
> continue;
This looks unrelated to the struct amd_iommu change here? And this is a
change I would ack right away, if sent in isolation or combined with
other, similar changes.
Jan
