On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:14:21AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:04:38AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:46:43AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > ping?
> >
> > Hopefully this goes through. I am in the process of testing it but
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:04:38AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:46:43AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > ping?
>
> Hopefully this goes through. I am in the process of testing it but ran
> into testing issues that I believe are unrelated.
Did you manage to
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:46:43AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> ping?
Hopefully this goes through. I am in the process of testing it but ran
into testing issues that I believe are unrelated.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:33:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The tbl_dma_addr
ping?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:33:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The tbl_dma_addr argument is used to check the DMA boundary for the
> allocations, and thus needs to be a dma_addr_t. swiotlb-xen instead
> passed a physical address, which could lead to incorrect results for
> strange
The tbl_dma_addr argument is used to check the DMA boundary for the
allocations, and thus needs to be a dma_addr_t. swiotlb-xen instead
passed a physical address, which could lead to incorrect results for
strange offsets. Fix this by removing the parameter entirely and hard
code the DMA address
