[PATCH rfcv2 1/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Clear cmds->num after arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit

[Balbir Singh]

On 9/9/25 15:42, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 01:16:11PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On 9/9/25 09:26, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>>> None of the callers of arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit() cares about the batch
>>> after a submission. So, it'll be certainly safe to nuke the cmds->num, at
>>> least upon a successful one. This will ease a bit a wrapper function, for
>>> the new arm_smmu_invs structure.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc at nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> index 2a8b46b948f05..cccf8f52ee0d5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> @@ -974,11 +974,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_add(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>>  	cmds->num++;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/* Clears cmds->num after a successful submission */
>>>  static int arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>>  				      struct arm_smmu_cmdq_batch *cmds)
>>>  {
>>
>> Nit: arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit_clear()?
> 
> Probably not. There is no particular point in highlighting it in
> the function name, as there is no use case wanting an uncleared
> version.

I did not suggest we need an uncleared version, I suggested the change
in name to highlight that the function has a side-effect of clearing
the cmds->num

Thanks,
Balbir