[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <436bf276-5b16-62af-6a32-70f91fce7557@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:20:08 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jianxiong Gao <jxgao@...gle.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix type of max_slot
On 3/2/21 12:21 PM, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> After the refactoring phase, the type of max_slot has changed from unsigned
> long to unsigned int. The return type of the function get_max_slots() and
> the 4th argument type of iommu_is_span_boundary() are different from the
> type of max_slot. Finally, asserts BUG_ON in iommu_is_span_boundary().
>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Fixes: 567d877f9a7d ("swiotlb: refactor swiotlb_tbl_map_single")
> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
I think this is all good. Looking at Linus's master I see:
537 unsigned long max_slots = get_max_slots(boundary_mask);
?
> ---
> kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> index 369e4c3..c10e855 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int find_slots(struct device *dev, phys_addr_t orig_addr,
> unsigned long boundary_mask = dma_get_seg_boundary(dev);
> dma_addr_t tbl_dma_addr =
> phys_to_dma_unencrypted(dev, io_tlb_start) & boundary_mask;
> - unsigned int max_slots = get_max_slots(boundary_mask);
> + unsigned long max_slots = get_max_slots(boundary_mask);
> unsigned int iotlb_align_mask =
> dma_get_min_align_mask(dev) & ~(IO_TLB_SIZE - 1);
> unsigned int nslots = nr_slots(alloc_size), stride;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists