From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752614AbdCBMZ7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:25:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47396 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752219AbdCBMZy (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:25:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqdomain: add empty irq_domain_check_msi_remap To: Marc Zyngier , Mian Yousaf Kaukab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com References: <20170302100132.20502-1-yousaf.kaukab@suse.com> <7f0ce412-d310-532c-ac13-e8f5ec77c213@arm.com> Cc: will.deacon@arm.com From: Auger Eric Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:29:17 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7f0ce412-d310-532c-ac13-e8f5ec77c213@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marc, On 02/03/2017 11:16, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 02/03/17 10:01, Mian Yousaf Kaukab wrote: >> Fix following build error for s390: >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c: In function 'vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group': >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c:1290:25: error: implicit declaration of function 'irq_domain_check_msi_remap' >> >> Signed-off-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab >> --- >> include/linux/irqdomain.h | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h >> index 188eced6813e..137817b08cdc 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h >> +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h >> @@ -524,6 +524,10 @@ static inline struct irq_domain *irq_find_matching_fwnode( >> { >> return NULL; >> } >> +static inline bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void) >> +{ >> + return true; > > I'm not sure about that one. If we don't support reserved regions for > MSI, why should we return "true" here? My gut feeling is that it should > be false (because we lack the infrastructure to deal with it). > > It is a bit of a moot point since the only calling site will *not* call > this in that case, but I believe that we should be consistent. > > Eric, what do you think? I agree with you. I Would return false here as just commented and I don't think subsequent patch is needed. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > > M. >