From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:06:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/dma: Restore scatterlist offsets correctly In-Reply-To: <20160405133310.GA9516@8bytes.org> References: <20160405125926.GI17838@8bytes.org> <5703B98A.6010200@arm.com> <20160405133310.GA9516@8bytes.org> Message-ID: <5703C671.6030207@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/04/16 14:33, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:11:38PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 05/04/16 13:59, Joerg Roedel wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 07:28:12PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>> With the change to stashing just the IOVA-page-aligned remainder of the >>>> CPU-page offset rather than the whole thing, the failure path in >>>> __invalidate_sg() also needs tweaking to account for that in the case of >>>> differing page sizes where the two offsets may not be equivalent. >>>> Similarly in __finalise_sg(), lest the architecture-specific wrappers >>>> later get the wrong address for cache maintenance on sync or unmap. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 164afb1d85b8 ("iommu/dma: Use correct offset in map_sg") >>>> Reported-by: Magnus Damm >>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy >>> >>> Cc: stable at ver.kernel.org # v4.4+ ? >> >> Good point - the kind of people using 64k pages are also likely to >> be the ones sticking to stable kernels. Are you able to handle that, >> or would you like me to resend? > > I added the tag and put the commit into my iommu/fixes branch. Can you > re-send me the second commit when the first is upstream (I'll send the > pull-req this week)? I'd like to avoid creating an additional > merge-commit just for this patch. Sure, will do - I agree there's absolutely no need to be mucking about with context conflicts right now. Thanks a lot, Robin. > > > Joerg > > _______________________________________________ > iommu mailing list > iommu at lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu >