On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:20:10AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:40:51PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > > In general, this seems to make sense to me. It does represent a > > > > theoretical > > > > change in behaviour for devices which have their own CMA area somewhere > > > > other than kernel memory, and only ever make non-atomic allocations, > > > > but > > > > I'm not sure whether that's a realistic or common enough case to really > > > > worry about. > > > > > > Yes, I think we should make the decision in dma_alloc_from_contiguous > > > based on having a per-dev CMA area or not. There is a lot of cruft in > > > > It seems that cma_alloc() already has a CMA area check? Would it > > be duplicated to have a similar one in dma_alloc_from_contiguous? > > It isn't duplicate if it serves a different purpose. > > > > this area that should be cleaned up while we're at it, like always > > > falling back to the normal page allocator if there is no CMA area or > > > nothing suitable found in dma_alloc_from_contiguous instead of > > > having to duplicate all that in the caller. > > > > Am I supposed to clean up things that's mentioned above by moving > > the fallback allocator into dma_alloc_from_contiguous, or to just > > move my change (the count check) into dma_alloc_from_contiguous? > > > > I understand that'd be great to have a cleanup, yet feel it could > > be done separately as this patch isn't really a cleanup change. > > I can take care of any cleanups. I've been trying to dust up that > area anyway.
Thanks for the reply. It looks like it'd be better for me to wait for the cleanup being done? I feel odd merely adding a size check in the dma_alloc_from_contiguous(). _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
