> One thought is that if you *do* move to dma_sync_single_range() then > lib/swiotlb.c still needs fixing. It's buggy in that > swiotlb_sync_single_range(dma_addr, offset) calls > swiotlb_sync_single(dma_addr+offset), and this will fail if the offset is > large enough that it ends up dereferencing a different slot index in > io_tlb_orig_addr.
Yes, I realized the same thing (our emails crossed). > So, I should be able to get my swiotlb workaround fixes accepted upstream as > a genuine bug fix. :-) Yeah, seems so. > dma_sync_single_range() looks to me to be the right thing for you to be > using. But I'm not a DMA-API expert. yes, I'll try to get confirmation from James Bottomley and/or Dave Miller that it is the right thing to do (and also fix the documentation to match what the kernel actually implements). - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
