[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090106.110642.130607183.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:06:42 +0900 (JST)
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com
Cc: anemo@....ocn.ne.jp, haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hskinnemoen@...el.com,
maciej.sosnowski@...el.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmatest: flush and invalidate destination buffer
before DMA
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:29:56 -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.
Yes, with additional checking in generic path :-)
> 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? :-).
Hmm... this is generic DMA mapping API (or linux-arch) issue. Let's
wait comments from arch maintainers. Ralf ?
---
Atsushi Nemoto
--
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