Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:10:33 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] Fix dma_mapping_error for 32bit x86 | From | FUJITA Tomonori <> |
| |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:58:52 +0100 Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:01:06PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:34:51 +0100 > > Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 01:46:27PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > > Devices like b44 ethernet can't dma from addresses above 1GB. The driver > > > > handles this cases by falling back to GFP_DMA allocation. But for detecting > > > > the problem it needs to get an indication from dma_mapping_error. > > > > The bug is triggered by using a VMSPLIT option of 2G/2G. > > > > > > Looks like your system uses swiotlb as the dma_ops backend. Its the only > > > implementation providing the ops->mapping_error callback and does not > > > use bad_dma_address as the error value. > > > > I think that you misunderstand the problem. > > > > He uses X86_32 so swiotlb should not be used (which is available on only > > X86_64 and IA64 for now). > > > > b44 needs an address under 1GB so it sets device->dma_mask to > > DMA_30BIT_MASK. With VMSPLIT option of 2G/2G, I guess that b44 could > > get addresses above 1GB from the networking subsystem. In such case, > > nommu_map_single returns bad_dma_address properly, but on X86_32, > > dma_mapping_error always returns 0 (success). So b44 wrongly thinks > > that the address is under 1GB. > > > > This patch fixes dma_mapping_error() to check a passed address > > properly (compares it with bad_dma_address). > > Ah true, thanks. Anyway, the patch also solved the problem with swiotlb > on 64bit.
Can you be specific?
swiotlb's dma_mapping_error on X86_64 doesn't have any problem as far as I know.
| |