Re: [PATCH v3] brcmsmac: Fix WARNING caused by lack of calls to dma_mapping_error()

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 08/10/2013 02:54 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 08/10/13 00:05, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 08/09/2013 12:36 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
>>> From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
>>>
>>> The driver fails to check the results of DMA mapping in twp places,
>>> which results in the following warning:
>>>
>>> [ 28.078515] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [ 28.078529] WARNING: at lib/dma-debug.c:937 check_unmap+0x47e/0x930()
>>> [ 28.078533] bcma-pci-bridge 0000:0e:00.0: DMA-API: device driver
>>> failed to check map error[device address=0x00000000b5d60d6c]
>>> [size=1876 bytes] [mapped as
>>> single]
>>> [ 28.078536] Modules linked in: bnep bluetooth vboxpci(O)
>>> vboxnetadp(O) vboxnetflt(O) vboxdrv(O) ipv6 b43 brcmsmac rtl8192cu
>>> rtl8192c_common rtlwifi mac802
>>> 11 brcmutil cfg80211 snd_hda_codec_conexant rng_core snd_hda_intel
>>> kvm_amd snd_hda_codec ssb kvm mmc_core snd_pcm snd_seq snd_timer
>>> snd_seq_device snd k8temp
>>> cordic joydev serio_raw hwmon sr_mod sg pcmcia pcmcia_core soundcore
>>> cdrom i2c_nforce2 i2c_core forcedeth bcma snd_page_alloc autofs4 ext4
>>> jbd2 mbcache crc1
>>> 6 scsi_dh_alua scsi_dh_hp_sw scsi_dh_rdac scsi_dh_emc scsi_dh
>>> ata_generic pata_amd
>>> [ 28.078602] CPU: 1 PID: 2570 Comm: NetworkManager Tainted: G O
>>> 3.10.0-rc7-wl+ #42
>>> [ 28.078605] Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP Pavilion dv2700
>>> Notebook PC/30D6, BIOS F.27 11/27/2008
>>> [ 28.078607] 0000000000000009 ffff8800bbb03ad8 ffffffff8144f898
>>> ffff8800bbb03b18
>>> [ 28.078612] ffffffff8103e1eb 0000000000000002 ffff8800b719f480
>>> ffff8800b7b9c010
>>> [ 28.078617] ffffffff824204c0 ffffffff81754d57 0000000000000754
>>> ffff8800bbb03b78
>>> [ 28.078622] Call Trace:
>>> [ 28.078624] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8144f898>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> [ 28.078634] [<ffffffff8103e1eb>] warn_slowpath_common+0x6b/0xa0
>>> [ 28.078638] [<ffffffff8103e2c1>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x50
>>> [ 28.078650] [<ffffffff8122d7ae>] check_unmap+0x47e/0x930
>>> [ 28.078655] [<ffffffff8122de4c>] debug_dma_unmap_page+0x5c/0x70
>>> [ 28.078679] [<ffffffffa04a808c>] dma64_getnextrxp+0x10c/0x190 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.078691] [<ffffffffa04a9042>] dma_rx+0x62/0x240 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.078707] [<ffffffffa0479101>] brcms_c_dpc+0x211/0x9d0 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.078717] [<ffffffffa046d927>] ? brcms_dpc+0x27/0xf0 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.078731] [<ffffffffa046d947>] brcms_dpc+0x47/0xf0 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.078736] [<ffffffff81047dcc>] tasklet_action+0x6c/0xf0
>>> --snip--
>>> [ 28.078974] [<ffffffff813891bd>] SyS_sendmsg+0xd/0x20
>>> [ 28.078979] [<ffffffff81455c24>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>>> [ 28.078982] ---[ end trace 6164d1a08148e9c8 ]---
>>> [ 28.078984] Mapped at:
>>> [ 28.078985] [<ffffffff8122c8fd>] debug_dma_map_page+0x9d/0x150
>>> [ 28.078989] [<ffffffffa04a9322>] dma_rxfill+0x102/0x3d0 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.079001] [<ffffffffa047a13d>] brcms_c_init+0x87d/0x1100 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.079010] [<ffffffffa046d851>] brcms_init+0x21/0x30 [brcmsmac]
>>> [ 28.079018] [<ffffffffa04786e0>] brcms_c_up+0x150/0x430 [brcmsmac]
>>>
>>> As the patch adds a new failure mechanism to dma_rxfill(). When I
>>> changed the
>>> comment at the start of the routine to add that information, I also
>>> polished
>>> the wording.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
>>> Cc: Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com>
>>> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>
>>> Cc: Franky (Zhenhui) Lin <frankyl@broadcom.com>
>>> Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com>
>>> Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com
>>> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
>>> ---
>>> Did this one get lost?
>>>
>>> V2 - fixed two patch errors.
>>> V3 - address comments from Arend (linville)
>>>
>>
>> For some reason, I never got the mail containing Arend's comments, and I
>> forgot about it. If John's V3 fixes take care of them, then it should be
>> pushed.
>
> Weird as I resend the comments. Do you have me on a blacklist ;-)

No. As you can see, this message came through. I also checked to make sure that 
my intermediate mailer had not put your message in its spam bucket.

Larry