On Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:12:47 pm Warner Losh wrote: > On 01/12/2011 17:06, Bruce Evans wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > > > >>> Log: > >>> Fix a brain fart. Since this file is shared between i386 and > >>> amd64, a > >>> bus_size_t may be 32 or 64 bits. Change the bounce_zone alignment > >>> field > >>> to explicitly be 32 bits, as I can't really imagine a DMA device that > >>> needs anything close to 2GB alignment of data. > >> > >> Hmm, we do have devices with 4GB boundaries though. I think I'd > >> prefer it if > >> you instead if you did this: > >> > >> #if defined(amd64) || defined(PAE) > >> #define SYSCTL_ADD_BUS_SIZE_T SYSCTL_ADD_UQUAD > >> #else > >> #define SYSCTL_ADD_BUS_SIZE_T SYSCTL_ADD_UINT > >> #endif > >> > >> and then just used SYSCTL_ADD_BUS_SIZE_T() in the code so we could > >> let the > >> members in the bounce zone retain the same types passed to > >> bus_dma_tag_create(). > > > > U_LONG should work on all arches. malloc(9) still uses u_long instead > > of size_t. This works for scalars even on the recently removed i386's > > with 32-bit longs where u_long is larger than size_t, since larger is > > a fail-safe direction. This fails for pointers. Newer parts of malloc() > > and uma are broken unless u_long is the same as uintptr_t, since they > > cast pointers to u_long. This direction is fail-safe too, but gcc warns > > about it. > > u_long doesn't work for N32. There, the pointers may only be 32-bit, > but PAs ar 64-bit. Longs are only 32-bits.
It doesn't work on PAE either. bus_size_t is not the same as size_t in this case. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
