Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Move selftests to a separate file

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 08:20:12PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 04:38:18PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 07:11:38PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > +static void __init arm_lpae_dump_ops(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data = io_pgtable_ops_to_data(ops);
> > > +	struct io_pgtable_cfg *cfg = &data->iop.cfg;
> > 
> > Can be:
> > 
> >        struct io_pgtable_cfg *cfg =
> >                &io_pgtable_ops_to_pgtable(pgtbl_ops)->cfg;
> 
> There are a bunch of other formatting issues here also, but I wanted to
> move the code as is, so with “--color-moved” you can see the exact
> difference, otherwise, it’s harder to review.
> 
> I can add a patch before to fix those + the printing as you suggested
> next.

Yeah, I brought it up because with the above you don't need
arm_lpae_io_pgtable

> I don’t have a strong opinion about this, but I am more inclined to
> keep the prints considering it’s a low-level test for the page table,
> and such parameters would be useful to understand the failures.

My general view has been that there is alot of debug prints I've added
to kunits to debug them but once they are debugged I tend to drop them
off as they may not be useful to debug the next issue.

> I know this is not relevant to this series, but the KVM driver will
> need to expose arm_lpae_io_pgtable anyway.

Really? That sounds like wrong layering, why does it need to break the
iopgtable abstraction? :(

Jason