[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y20x7vaz.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 19:15:32 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@...il.com>,
iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
ath9k-based AP
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:02:16PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> > If
>> > ddbd89deb7d3 alone turns out to work OK then I'd be inclined to try a
>> > partial revert of just that one hunk.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not against being pragmatic and doing the partial revert. But as
>> explained above, I do believe for correctness of swiotlb we ultimately
>> do need that change. So if the revert is the short term solution,
>> what should be our mid-term road-map?
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding this thread we found the bug in ath9k
> and have a fix for that now?
According to Maxim's comment on the other subthread, that ath9k patch
wouldn't work on all platforms (and constitutes a bit of a violation of
the DMA API ownership abstraction). So not quite, I think?
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists