[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4962B414.8010601@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:29:56 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>
CC: "haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com" <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hskinnemoen@...el.com" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"Sosnowski, Maciej" <maciej.sosnowski@...el.com>,
"ralf@...ux-mips.org" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmatest: flush and invalidate destination buffer before
DMA
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:31:57 -0700, "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> Yes, MIPS and ARM do different thing on partial cache line. But I
> suppose this belongs to "implementation dependent" area of DMA API so
> users of the API should not depend on it. (Well, maybe I'm biased to
> MIPS ;-))
>
> In general, drivers must not put normal data and DMA buffer on same
> cacheline anyway to avoid unexpected writeback and data loss. So this
> ambiguity is not a problem. IMHO writeback of the partial line for
> DMA_FROM_DEVICE just _hides_ abusing of the DMA API and potential data
> loss.
Hmm... one implementation does the right thing in all cases. The other
silently allows data corruption unless each callsite that accidentally
or purposely passes cacheline-unaligned buffers adds extra maintenance
code. Which implementation are you biased towards now? :-).
--
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