From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756633AbbI2PEv (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:04:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51576 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754140AbbI2PEm (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:04:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:04:38 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Joerg Roedel Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/vt-d: break the for loop if an empty ir_ioapic entry found Message-ID: <20150929150438.GA2011@dhcp-17-102.nay.redhat.com> References: <1443511569-9187-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com> <20150929135033.GC7572@8bytes.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150929135033.GC7572@8bytes.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/29/15 at 03:50pm, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:26:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > No need to continue the loop after it has been found. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He > > --- > > drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c > > index 9ec4e0d..37b93f5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c > > @@ -841,8 +841,10 @@ static int ir_parse_one_ioapic_scope(struct acpi_dmar_device_scope *scope, > > if (ir_ioapic[count].iommu == iommu && > > ir_ioapic[count].id == scope->enumeration_id) > > return 0; > > - else if (ir_ioapic[count].iommu == NULL && free == -1) > > + else if (ir_ioapic[count].iommu == NULL && free == -1) { > > free = count; > > + break; > > + } > > } > > The purpose of the loop is also to avoid duplicate entries, so we need > to search it till the end, no? Ah, yes, you are right, it's on purpose. So I will drop this one and update the 2/2 only with your suggestion.