lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] swiotlb: Add is_swiotlb_active() function
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 04:00:00PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:41:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:29:23AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > > As I've just introduced and fixed a bug in this area in the current
> > > > cycle - I don't think no_iotlb_memory is what your want (and maybe
> > > > not useful at all): if the arch valls swiotlb_exit after previously
> > > > initializing a buffer it won't be set. You probably want to check
> > > > for non-zero io_tlb_start and/or io_tlb_end.
> > >
> > > Okay, but that requires that I also set io_tlb_start and friends back to
> > > zero in the failure path of swiotlb_init(). Otherwise it could be left
> > > non-zero in case swiotlb_init_with_tbl() returns an error.
> >
> > Indeed, and we'll need to do that anyway as otherwise the dma mapping
> > path might cause problems similar to the one when swiotlb_exit is
> > called that I fixed.
>
> Turns out the the error path in swiotlb_init() is redundant because it
> will never be executed. If the function returns it will always return 0
> because in case of failure it will just panic (through memblock_alloc).
>
> I'll clean that up in a separate patch-set. There are more users of that
> function and all of them panic when the function fails.
>
>
> Joerg

OK so are you going to post a new version then? Time's running out for 5.0.
This isn't a regression so maybe we should just defer it all to 5.1.

--
MST

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-28 18:19    [W:0.067 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site