[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20710261002m1c5063bdqa040834c30d9ca8a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:02:24 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Cc: "Shannon Nelson" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>, kernel@...32linux.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMA: Correct invalid assumptions in the Kconfig text
On 10/25/07, Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:16:16 +0200
> Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > [handwaving about API extensions]
>
> Oh, and we definitely need a way to report errors. Looks like the
> existing drivers want this as well -- I couldn't help but notice this
> in the iop-adma driver:
>
> static irqreturn_t iop_adma_err_handler(int irq, void *data)
> {
> (...)
>
> BUG();
> }
>
> That's a panic waiting to happen, isn't it?
Yes, and it should have a comment, because for now this is deliberate.
This was primarily driven by the fact that MD has no way of
recovering from hardware errors during software-memcpy or
software-xor_blocks so there was no where to plug-in
accelerated-memcpy/xor error recovery. I can foresee other clients
wanting to have this information reported but async_tx based clients
are supposed to be blissfully unaware of under the covers hardware
acceleration.
One idea is to pass an error-pointer as the parameter to callback
routines, but that would hamper the client's ability to recover the
context of the failure...
>
> HÃ¥vard
--
Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists