[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025081404-conceal-next-8858@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:54:35 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Hardeep Sharma <quic_hardshar@...cinc.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6.y v2 1/1] block: Fix bounce check logic in
blk_queue_may_bounce()
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 06:36:29PM +0530, Hardeep Sharma wrote:
> This change to blk_queue_may_bounce() in block/blk.h will only affect
> systems with the following configuration:
>
> 1. 32-bit ARM architecture
> 2. Physical DDR memory greater than 1GB
> 3. CONFIG_HIGHMEM enabled
> 4. Virtual memory split of 1GB for kernel and 3GB for userspace
>
> Under these conditions, the logic for buffer bouncing is relevant because
> the kernel may need to handle memory above the low memory threshold, which
> is typical for highmem-enabled 32-bit systems with large RAM. On other
> architectures or configurations, this code path will not be exercised.
You did not answer most of the questions I asked for some reason :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists