From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 15:46:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Sebastian Ott Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] s390/cio: add basic protected virtualization support In-Reply-To: <20190426183245.37939-7-pasic@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190426183245.37939-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20190426183245.37939-7-pasic@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Halil Pasic Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck , Martin Schwidefsky , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Viktor Mihajlovski , Vasily Gorbik , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Farhan Ali , Eric Farman List-ID: On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Halil Pasic wrote: > static struct ccw_device * io_subchannel_allocate_dev(struct subchannel *sch) > { [..] > + cdev->private = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ccw_device_private), > + GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA); Do we still need GFP_DMA here (since we now have cdev->private->dma_area)? > @@ -1062,6 +1082,14 @@ static int io_subchannel_probe(struct subchannel *sch) > if (!io_priv) > goto out_schedule; > > + io_priv->dma_area = dma_alloc_coherent(&sch->dev, > + sizeof(*io_priv->dma_area), > + &io_priv->dma_area_dma, GFP_KERNEL); This needs GFP_DMA. You use a genpool for ccw_private->dma and not for iopriv->dma - looks kinda inconsistent.