Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:15:34 +0300 | From | Muli Ben-Yehuda <> | Subject | swiotlb=force fix |
| |
Hi Andi,
I was looking at your swiotlb=force fix at ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.18-rc2/2.6.18-rc2-mm1/broken-out/x86_64-mm-fix-swiotlb-force.patch.
In general I agree with the patch (and thanks for fixing it).
> - if (!iommu_detected && !no_iommu && > - (end_pfn > MAX_DMA32_PFN || force_iommu)) > + if (!iommu_detected && !no_iommu && end_pfn > MAX_DMA32_PFN) > swiotlb = 1;
what is the expected outcome if the user specifies 'iommu=force' with no HW IOMMU in the machine and swiotlb compiled in? we thought the path of least surprise is to enable swiotlb unconditionally in this case. You removed the check for force_iommu here so now this set of command line options will *not* turn on swiotlb unless there's more than 4G in the machine, which can be surprising.
> +extern int swiotlb_force; > + > #ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB > extern int swiotlb; > #else > #define swiotlb 0 > #endif
Any reason not to move this into the CONFIG_SWIOTLB bit the same way 'extern int swiotlb' is declared?
Cheers, Muli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |