From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786BBC43612 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481BA2070B for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="hFhhJrDL" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 481BA2070B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=OAjLAHP9hjyfp1m6wxX4is1ERBM40v7U8+mpAsccUe0=; b=hFhhJrDLQCAAya VJONDrFLlonPXedpumBuRMLoyp5aWLpMl37a7jwMOPnVWC+iZMJSVMviakRy9jxzbtviLf3pMi1aL j8BWGhoBv4RHQOeNLGmU5WYKH8VG23P8z/8X0HnUEfZsRi2/0yMD1VmQ+fJTmgSooRVHtixvaEvzD YtOkEntDjCtDTzzaNUVpfi+BwX5i9aYU51vvy7TrpYiVeB9fKLBbT5NnwbZXaxhL9OWG9XMHs+t1G 4BAt+fB1kltT45L3bCIoxsw6/L3+rOG09osoUSeh/aU38zYfHlxzS8SJpq+q7NHdfhFzCVc3j1Gw1 dZwm0V6Xe2a8ZF6zem8g==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gj5Yp-0005l7-6O; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:58:03 +0000 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211] helo=newverein.lst.de) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gj5Yl-0005kA-BE for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:58:01 +0000 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 9077968D93; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:57:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:57:55 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robin Murphy Subject: Re: remove block layer bounce buffering for MMC Message-ID: <20190114165755.GA7456@lst.de> References: <20190114095804.27978-1-hch@lst.de> <5d09d233-8631-2a35-cbcf-ba87b0314b3a@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5d09d233-8631-2a35-cbcf-ba87b0314b3a@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190114_085759_527228_F927B910 X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 9.65 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Ulf Hansson , Nicolas Pitre , Aaro Koskinen , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ben Dooks , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:52:40PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > One general point for the kmap() conversions - it's not obvious (to me at > least) whether or how that would work for a segment where sg->length > > PAGE_SIZE. Or is there some cast-iron guarantee from the MMC mid-layer that > it will never let the block layer generate such things in the first place? None of this will with such segments. But yes, I guess the old case could have worked as long as any physical contigous ranges are also virtually contigous. So we might have to throw in a page size segment boundary here. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel