[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <1287407280.10438.44.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:08:00 -0400
From: David Dillow <dillowda@...l.gov>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: "rolandd@...co.com" <rolandd@...co.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DMA sync question
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 06:11 -0400, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:25 AM, David Dillow <dillowda@...l.gov> wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > +static int srp_response_common(struct srp_target_port *target, s32 req_delta,
> > + void *rsp, int len)
[ ... ]
> > +
> > + ib_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, iu->dma, len, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> > + memcpy(iu->buf, rsp, len);
> > + ib_dma_sync_single_for_device(dev, iu->dma, len, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> > [ ... ]
> Hi Dave,
>
> As far as I can see the above sync call applies to a buffer in the
> tx_ring[]. Data in that buffer is only modified by the CPU and never
> by the HCA. So why is the above sync call present ? Is that call
> necessary ?
In this instance, I copied existing practice from srp_queuecommand().
Documentation/DMA-API.txt seems to indicate we don't need the initial
*_sync_for_cpu() since the device never writes to the buffer, but I seem
to have an old memory that says we should do it anyways.
Perhaps LKML can clear it up -- do we need to call *_sync_for_cpu()
after a *sync_for_device(), even if the device never writes to the
buffer?
--
Dave Dillow
National Center for Computational Science
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(865) 241-6602 office
--
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