lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] remove the ->mapping_error method from dma_map_ops
From
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:46:30 +0100

> Error reporting for the dma_map_single and dma_map_page operations is
> currently a mess. Both APIs directly return the dma_addr_t to be used for
> the DMA, with a magic error escape that is specific to the instance and
> checked by another method provided. This has a few downsides:
>
> - the error check is easily forgotten and a __must_check marker doesn't
> help as the value always is consumed anyway
> - the error checking requires another indirect call, which have gotten
> incredibly expensive
> - a lot of code is wasted on implementing these methods
>
> The historical reason for this is that people thought DMA mappings would
> not fail when the API was created, which sounds like a really bad
> assumption in retrospective, and then we tried to cram error handling
> onto it later on.
>
> There basically are two variants: the error code is 0 because the
> implementation will never return 0 as a valid DMA address, or the error
> code is all-F as the implementation won't ever return an address that
> high. The old AMD GART is the only one not falling into these two camps
> as it picks sort of a relative zero relative to where it is mapped.
>
> The 0 return doesn't work for a lot of IOMMUs that start allocating
> bus space from address zero, so we can't consolidate on that, but I think
> we can move everyone to all-Fs, which the patch here does. The reason
> for that is that there is only one way to ever get this address: by
> doing a 1-byte long, 1-byte aligned mapping, but all our mappings
> are not only longer but generally aligned, and the mappings have to
> keep at least the basic alignment. Please try to poke holes into this
> idea as it would simplify our logic a lot, and also allow to change
> at least the not so commonly used yet dma_map_single_attrs and
> dma_map_page_attrs to actually return an error code and further improve
> the error handling flow in the drivers.

I have no problem with patch #1, it looks great.

But patch #2 on the other hand, not so much.

I hate seeing values returned by reference, it adds cost especially
on cpus where all argments and return values fit in registers (we end
up forcing a stack slot and memory references).

And we don't need it here.

DMA addresses are like pointers, and therefore we can return errors and
valid success values in the same dma_addr_t just fine. PTR_ERR() --> DMA_ERR(),
IS_PTR_ERR() --> IS_DMA_ERR, etc.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-10 00:13    [W:0.066 / U:14.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site