IOMMU: Style Fix ups (minor)#570
Open
cazb2 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Improve variable naming such that it is consistent between the sdf api and the code. Signed-off-by: Callum <c.berry@student.unsw.edu.au>
dreamliner787-9
self-requested a review
July 20, 2026 23:59
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improve variable naming such that it is consistent between the sdf api and the code.
Remove some boilerplate that can be avoided for now (Hash impl on the PCIDevice).
This implied changing hash map/hash sets that were keyed on this type being replaced, which was a trivial fix, since the name field which we validate as unique in the sdf parsing can be used instead.
Swap order that I placed the IOMMU address space construction in the builder.rs, previously I placed it after handling extra caps, but in future it is likely the cap sharing will including IO related caps. The diff here is really just the change to the comment ("step 5/6"), but GitHub doesn't handle reorderings well.