linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: blk_rq_dma_map_iter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260112142822.tk34ei4evgypw3qv@green245.gost>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 19:58:22 +0530
From: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph
	Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	nitheshshetty@...il.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: blk_rq_dma_map_iter_next is no longer using
 iova state

On 12/01/26 03:08PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>On 1/12/26 14:57, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> DMA IOVA state is not used inside blk_rq_dma_map_iter_next
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 5 ++---
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>> index 3b528369f5454..065555576d2f9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
>> @@ -823,7 +823,7 @@ static bool nvme_pci_prp_iter_next(struct request *req, struct device *dma_dev,
>>
>>  	if (iter->len)
>>  		return true;
>> -	if (!blk_rq_dma_map_iter_next(req, dma_dev, &iod->dma_state, iter))
>> +	if (!blk_rq_dma_map_iter_next(req, dma_dev, iter))
>
>Hu... Why is this not squashed with the previous patch ? If only patch 1 is
>applied, this will not compile, right ?
>
I couldn’t decide whether to use the layering convention or a unified patch,
so I chose one patch per layer.
Agreed, independently this doesn't compile, merging make sense.
I will resend.

Thanks,
Nitesh