From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:46:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Brownell Subject: Re: [patch 02/13] jffs2 summary allocation: don't use vmalloc() Message-Id: <20080730154618.65a25c67.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080730223924.3C51136129C@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> References: <200807301934.m6UJYvtA012276@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20080730223924.3C51136129C@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: trimarchimichael@yahoo.it, dwmw2@infradead.org, jwboyer@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:39:24 -0700 David Brownell wrote: > > This patch will probably break all sorts of things because that buffer is > > &*large*: up to half a meg. > > > > So this patch isn't mergeable. I'll hang onto it to bug dmwm2 with when he > > reincarnates. > > I'm still asking whether MTD folk have any plans to make that stack DMA-safe... > more than just the SPI flash drivers (mtd_dataflash, m25p80) could benefit > from DMA support, so I'd hope it's at least being considered. > > If the answer is "no" then (a) the MTD interface specs need to finally say > they pass DMA-unsafe addresses, and (b) those SPI flash drivers are going > to need updates. Well yes. It's been four months since this bug (it goes oops!) was reported and afaik there's been no discussion or consideration or anything else. I don't know how much of a problem this bug is in the real world, but it's taking an awful long time to get fixed?