From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Williamson Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] iommu/amd: Add default branch in amd_iommu_capable() Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 13:37:03 -0600 Message-ID: <20180905133703.331c0c17@t450s.home> References: <20180830040922.30426-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20180830040922.30426-4-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180830040922.30426-4-baolu.lu-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Lu Baolu Cc: kevin.tian-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, ashok.raj-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, tiwei.bie-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Jean-Philippe Brucker , sanjay.k.kumar-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, yi.y.sun-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Kirti Wankhede , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, jacob.jun.pan-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, David Woodhouse List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:09:15 +0800 Lu Baolu wrote: > Otherwise, there will be a build warning: > > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c:3083:2: warning: enumeration value > 'IOMMU_CAP_AUX_DOMAIN' not handled in switch [-Wswitch] > > There is no functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu > --- > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > index 4e04fff23977..237ae6db4cfd 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c > @@ -3077,6 +3077,8 @@ static bool amd_iommu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap) > return (irq_remapping_enabled == 1); > case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC: > return false; > + default: > + break; > } > > return false; Seems like a bug fix that doesn't need to be part of this RFC, send it separately. Thanks, Alex