[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090605182015.GA10342@8bytes.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:20:17 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
lethal@...ux-sh.org, hancockrwd@...il.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
bharrosh@...asas.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-debug: disable DMA_API_DEBUG for now
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 05:52:27PM +0200, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> This doesn't look right to me.
> The comment above says "returns the entry from the hash which fits
> best", but this will always return NULL, if there are are multiple
> entrys, but no perfect match.
This is intentional. If there is no perfect-fit there is no way to tell
which entry was meant. So we potentially report wrong errors with a
wrong mapping backtrace which confuses even more than the wrong
"DMA-API: device driver tries to free DMA memory it has not allocated".
> Should there be a warning if more then one possible match were found?
True. That would be better. But I tried to keep the code change as small
as possible without disabling the feature completly.
> * driver maps address 'a' with size 1
> * driver maps same address 'a' with size 2
> * driver wrongly unmaps the second allocation with size 1
> -> no warning, because the first allocation is returned
Hmm, I am not sure if we can handle this situation correctly in the
dma-debug code. There is no unique key to identify a mapping request
which allows to assign an unmap request to it. Currently dma-debug uses
device and dma-address. But that seems not to be sufficient. The
best-fit algorithm is also a but fuzzy of course.
> * driver wants to correctly unmap the first allocation
> -> wrong warning about this unmap because size mismatch
Ok, at least we get a warning about a bug. Not very useful because it
reports the wrong bug. Is this the situation which triggered the
original bug report?
> Also what about sg_call_ents and sg_mapped_ents?
> Could it be possible to get the same address/size with different sg-counts.
It looks not forbidden in the API. So I guess this can happen too.
Regards,
Joerg
--
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