[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190423061232.GB12762@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:12:32 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...el.com, alan.cox@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, pengfei.xu@...el.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] swiotlb: Factor out slot allocation and free
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:58:19AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> 554 for (i = 0; i < nslots; i++)
> 555 io_tlb_orig_addr[index+i] = orig_addr + (i <<
> IO_TLB_SHIFT);
>
> Could the tlb orig address set to PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(orig_addr)? We
> couldn't assume the bounce buffer just starts from the beginning of the
> slot. Or anything I missed?
I don't see why we need to align the orig_addr. We only use
io_tlb_orig_addr to find the address(es) for the swiotlb_bounce calls,
and I don't see a good reason why we'd need to align those.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists