linux-kernel - Re: dma_unmap_sg - what number of entries is to be passed as parameter really?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:19:10 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	linus.ml.walleij@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david-b@...bell.net,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, per.forlin@...aro.org,
	Ulf.Hansson@...ricsson.com
Subject: Re: dma_unmap_sg - what number of entries is to be passed as
 parameter really?

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:40:56 +0100
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com> wrote:

> Now we have a contradiction between two pieces of documentation,
> in Documentation/DMA-API.txt
> 
> 
>         void
>         dma_unmap_sg(struct device *dev, struct scatterlist *sg,
>                 int nhwentries, enum dma_data_direction direction)
> 
>   Unmap the previously mapped scatter/gather list.  All the parameters
>   must be the same as those and passed in to the scatter/gather mapping
>   API.
> 
>   Note: <nents> must be the number you passed in, *not* the number of
>   physical entries returned.
> 
> 
> Note the last paragraph! But in arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c;
> 
> 
> /**
>  * dma_unmap_sg - unmap a set of SG buffers mapped by dma_map_sg
>  * @dev: valid struct device pointer, or NULL for ISA and EISA-like devices
>  * @sg: list of buffers
>  * @nents: number of buffers to unmap (returned from dma_map_sg)
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  * @dir: DMA transfer direction (same as was passed to dma_map_sg)
>  *
>  * Unmap a set of streaming mode DMA translations.  Again, CPU access
>  * rules concerning calls here are the same as for dma_unmap_single().
>  */
> 
> So the documentation in Documentation/ says one thing, whereas
> the ARM implementation documentation says something else.

Can you remove DMA-API comments in arch? They simply lead to
confusion.

DMA-API.txt and DMA-API-HOWTO.txt in Documentation should be always
used.
--
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/