[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240911090508.GE4026@unreal>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 12:05:08 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: NĂcolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev, kernelci@...ts.linux.dev,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dma: add IOMMU static calls with clear default ops
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:04:45AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 09:43:05AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Thanks for the report, I'm looking into it. However, it is unclear to me
> > why my patch is causing this issue. The change in dma_supported() should
> > produce WARN_ON [1] if new path is taken, otherwise, we return to
> > previous behavior.
>
> dma-iommu never implemented .dma_supported and thus claims to support
> all dma masks. To restore that behavior we'd need something like the
> patch below:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> index 7550b5dc5e55df..d23a4d5a6b31a1 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> @@ -841,17 +841,19 @@ static int dma_supported(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> {
> const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
>
> - if (WARN_ON(ops && use_dma_iommu(dev)))
> - return false;
The below code still has merit. It is an error to have ops and take
dma-iommu path.
> /*
> * ->dma_supported sets the bypass flag, so we must always call
> * into the method here unless the device is truly direct mapped.
> */
> - if (!ops)
> - return dma_direct_supported(dev, mask);
> - if (!ops->dma_supported)
> - return 1;
> - return ops->dma_supported(dev, mask);
> + if (ops) {
> + if (!ops->dma_supported)
> + return 1;
> + return ops->dma_supported(dev, mask);
> + }
> +
> + if (use_dma_iommu(dev))
> + return true;
I would simply put this hunk below if (WARN_ON ...) without any other
changes. Should I send a patch?
Thanks
> + return dma_direct_supported(dev, mask);
> }
>
> bool dma_pci_p2pdma_supported(struct device *dev)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists