[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240223122529.GA10641@willie-the-truck>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:25:30 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Fix double allocation in swiotlb_alloc()
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:34:56AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:34:59AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > This is version four of the patches which I previously posted at:
> >
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240126151956.10014-1-will@kernel.org
> > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240131122543.14791-1-will@kernel.org
> > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240205190127.20685-1-will@kernel.org
> >
> > Thanks to Petr for his Reviewed-by tag on the first three.
> >
> > Changes since v3 include:
> >
> > - Use umax() instead of max() to fix a build warning if the first
> > patch is applied to older kernels which warn on signedness
> > mismatches.
> >
> > - Add two new patches to the end of the series to resolve some
> > additional issues with NVME and 64KiB pages, reported by Nicolin.
> > I've added them to this series, as the first three patches make it
> > easier to fix this problem in the SWIOTLB code.
> >
> > - Add Reviewed-by tags from Petr
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Will
> >
> > Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> > Cc: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
> > Cc: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> > Cc: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
>
> This fixes the bug with NVME on arm64/SMMU when PAGE_SIZE=64KiB.
>
> Tested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Thanks, Nicolin! Please can you also respond to Michael's observation on
your patch (5/5)? I didn't think we needed anything extra there, but since
it's your patch I'd prefer to hear your opinion.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/SN6PR02MB4157828120FB7D3408CEC991D4572@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com/
Cheers,
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists