On Mon Sep 7, 2026 at 11:43 AM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > I guess what this last paragraph wants to state is that no user is > affected by this patch? There is another subtle user though: the Rust > DMA sample.
Yes, that's what I meant. I missed the sample, but it wouldn't make a difference anyway. So I just removed the paragraph in v2. > nit: if we rename this variable, let's name it `max_mapping_size` for > consistency. Agreed. Fixed. Let me know if everything is fixed in v2. > It also means that without patch 1, nova-core would split the firmware > into hundreds of 64KB SG entries, which is not breaking but still > something we want to avoid. The correct fix is to make sure that > `dma_set_max_seg_size` is called by the driver, and while we are at it > we also want every driver to call `dma_set_mask_and_coherent`. Ideally > we would use the type system to make sure that both functions are called > before any DMA operation can take place (using a safe interface), but > I'm not quite sure yet how we can do this. This sounds sensible indeed. Should I open a thread regarding that on Zulip?
