On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 23:25 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:59:42PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > if (mask > ~0U)
> > > » » return 0;
> > >
> > > Removing the if() makes the DMA mapping work. It's almost
> > > midnight here, so i won't look into that
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:59:42PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > if (mask > ~0U)
> > » » return 0;
> >
> > Removing the if() makes the DMA mapping work. It's almost midnight
> > here, so i won't look into that any further today. Does anyone have
> > an opinion on this behaviour?
On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 23:14 +0200, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:45:54PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this series finishes off converting our dma mask model to split
> > between device capabilities (dev->dma_mask and dev-
> > >coherent_dma_mask)
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:45:54PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this series finishes off converting our dma mask model to split between
> device capabilities (dev->dma_mask and dev->coherent_dma_mask) and system
> limitations (dev->bus_dma_mask). We already accept larger
Hi all,
this series finishes off converting our dma mask model to split between
device capabilities (dev->dma_mask and dev->coherent_dma_mask) and system
limitations (dev->bus_dma_mask). We already accept larger than required
masks in most dma_map_ops implementation, in case of x86 and
5 matches
Mail list logo