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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:19:52 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] DMA, CMA: support alignment constraint on cma region On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:02:38PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12 2014, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote: > > ppc kvm's cma area management needs alignment constraint on > > I've noticed it earlier and cannot seem to get to terms with this. It > should IMO be PPC, KVM and CMA since those are acronyms. But if you > have strong feelings, it's not a big issue. Yes, I will fix it. > > > cma region. So support it to prepare generalization of cma area > > management functionality. > > > > Additionally, add some comments which tell us why alignment > > constraint is needed on cma region. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> > > Acked-by: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c b/drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c > > index 8a44c82..bc4c171 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c > > @@ -219,6 +220,7 @@ core_initcall(cma_init_reserved_areas); > > * @size: Size of the reserved area (in bytes), > > * @base: Base address of the reserved area optional, use 0 for any > > * @limit: End address of the reserved memory (optional, 0 for any). > > + * @alignment: Alignment for the contiguous memory area, should be > > power of 2 > > “must be power of 2 or zero”. Okay. > > * @res_cma: Pointer to store the created cma region. > > * @fixed: hint about where to place the reserved area > > * > > @@ -233,15 +235,15 @@ core_initcall(cma_init_reserved_areas); > > */ > > static int __init __dma_contiguous_reserve_area(phys_addr_t size, > > phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t limit, > > + phys_addr_t alignment, > > struct cma **res_cma, bool fixed) > > { > > struct cma *cma = &cma_areas[cma_area_count]; > > - phys_addr_t alignment; > > int ret = 0; > > > > - pr_debug("%s(size %lx, base %08lx, limit %08lx)\n", __func__, > > - (unsigned long)size, (unsigned long)base, > > - (unsigned long)limit); > > + pr_debug("%s(size %lx, base %08lx, limit %08lx align_order %08lx)\n", > > + __func__, (unsigned long)size, (unsigned long)base, > > + (unsigned long)limit, (unsigned long)alignment); > > Nit: Align with the rest of the arguments, i.e.: > > + pr_debug("%s(size %lx, base %08lx, limit %08lx align_order %08lx)\n", > + __func__, (unsigned long)size, (unsigned long)base, > + (unsigned long)limit, (unsigned long)alignment); What's the difference between mine and yours? Thanks. -- 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