On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:51:34AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And we should be fine.
Great, I just sent a v2. Thanks!
Tycho
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 02:51:34AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And we should be fine.
Great, I just sent a v2. Thanks!
Tycho
> I don't understand all the factors at play here, so thoughts are definitely
> welcome.
I don't fully understand the old code either. One thing that is weird
is the "use a bounce buffer comment" which doesn't make any sense.
The other is the local_irq_save, which isn't really needed for
> I don't understand all the factors at play here, so thoughts are definitely
> welcome.
I don't fully understand the old code either. One thing that is weird
is the "use a bounce buffer comment" which doesn't make any sense.
The other is the local_irq_save, which isn't really needed for
The XPFO [1] patchset may unmap pages from physmap if they happened to be
destined for userspace. If such a page is unmapped, it needs to be
remapped. Rather than test if a page is in the highmem/xpfo unmapped state,
Christoph suggested [2] that we simply always map the page.
Suggested-by:
The XPFO [1] patchset may unmap pages from physmap if they happened to be
destined for userspace. If such a page is unmapped, it needs to be
remapped. Rather than test if a page is in the highmem/xpfo unmapped state,
Christoph suggested [2] that we simply always map the page.
Suggested-by:
6 matches
Mail list logo