On 7/31/2023 9:46 PM, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> V Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:04:09 +0200
> Christoph Hellwig napsáno:
>
>> I was just going to apply this, but patch 1 seems to have a non-trivial
>> conflict with the is_swiotlb_active removal in pci-dma.c. Can you resend
>> against the current dma-mapping
V Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:04:09 +0200
Christoph Hellwig napsáno:
> I was just going to apply this, but patch 1 seems to have a non-trivial
> conflict with the is_swiotlb_active removal in pci-dma.c. Can you resend
> against the current dma-mapping for-next tree?
Sure thing, will re-send tomorrow
I was just going to apply this, but patch 1 seems to have a non-trivial
conflict with the is_swiotlb_active removal in pci-dma.c. Can you resend
against the current dma-mapping for-next tree?
From: Petr Tesarik
Motivation
==
The software IO TLB was designed with these assumptions:
1) It would not be used much. Small systems (little RAM) don't need it, and
big systems (lots of RAM) would have modern DMA controllers and an IOMMU
chip to handle legacy devices.
2) A small
