Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/22] swiotlb: refactor coherent buffer allocation | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:02:30 +0000 |
| |
On 10/01/18 15:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:22:18PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> + if (phys_addr == SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR) >>> + goto out_warn; >>> - /* Confirm address can be DMA'd by device */ >>> - if (dev_addr + size - 1 > dma_mask) { >>> - printk("hwdev DMA mask = 0x%016Lx, dev_addr = 0x%016Lx\n", >>> - (unsigned long long)dma_mask, >>> - (unsigned long long)dev_addr); >>> + *dma_handle = swiotlb_phys_to_dma(dev, phys_addr); >> >> nit: this should probably go after the dma_coherent_ok() check (as with the >> original logic). > > But the originall logic also needs the dma_addr_t for the > dma_coherent_ok check: > > dev_addr = swiotlb_phys_to_dma(hwdev, paddr); > /* Confirm address can be DMA'd by device */ > if (dev_addr + size - 1 > dma_mask) { > ... > goto err_warn; > } > > or do you mean assining to *dma_handle? The dma_handle is not > valid for a failure return, so I don't think this should matter.
Yeah, only the assignment - as I said, it's just a stylistic nit; no big deal either way.
>>> + if (ret) { >>> + *dma_handle = swiotlb_virt_to_bus(hwdev, ret); >>> + if (dma_coherent_ok(hwdev, *dma_handle, size)) { >>> + memset(ret, 0, size); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >> >> Aren't we leaking the pages here? > > Yes, that free_pages got lost somewhere in the rebases, I've added > it back.
Cool.
Robin.
|  |