[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210322074627.GA4252@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:46:27 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"open list:SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] swiotlb: Make SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE perform no allocation
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 08:37:40PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> - if (!strcmp(str, "force")) {
> + if (!strcmp(str, "force"))
> swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> - } else if (!strcmp(str, "noforce")) {
> + else if (!strcmp(str, "noforce"))
> swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE;
> - default_nslabs = 1;
> - }
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -211,6 +209,9 @@ swiotlb_init(int verbose)
> size_t bytes = PAGE_ALIGN(default_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> void *tlb;
>
> + if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE)
> + return;
We'll also need this in the other callers of swiotlb_init_with_tbl
and swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl.
I actually had a plan to mostly kill them, but that can better
way until more support for multiple io_tlb structures is merged.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists