On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:52:26PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> As Catalin pointed out before, many of the users above may still have
> implicit assumptions about the default CMA area, i.e. that this won't
> return something above the limit they originally passed to
> dma_contiguous_reserve(). I'm not sure how straightforward that is to
> resolve - at the very least we may have to monkey around with GFP_DMA{32}
> flags based on where dma_contiguous_default_area lies :(
Or just convert the callers one by one. The two most interesting ones
are dma-direct which always check addressability after the allocation,
and dma-iommu, which doesn't care. dma-iommu.c and intel-iommu.c also
don't care, but should use dma-iommu by next merge window anyway,
which leaves arm which is so complicated that we better don't touch
it for now, and xtensa, which I hope to switch to dma-direct in the
next merge window or two.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
