From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85200B70E5 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E620ADDD1B for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:26:05 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: From: Becky Bruce To: Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <68EFFAF6-EF5B-4148-BC54-70BF2AF2456E@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: Re: [00/15] swiotlb cleanup Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:24:33 -0500 References: <1247187904-31999-1-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20090710051236.GA22218@elte.hu> <68EFFAF6-EF5B-4148-BC54-70BF2AF2456E@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Ian Campbell , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mailing List" , FUJITA Tomonori , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:13 PM, Becky Bruce wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> >> * FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >> >>> - removes unused (and unnecessary) hooks in swiotlb. >>> >>> - adds dma_capable() and converts swiotlb to use it. It can be >>> used to >>> know if a memory area is dma capable or not. I added >>> is_buffer_dma_capable() for the same purpose long ago but it turned >>> out that the function doesn't work on POWERPC. >>> >>> This can be applied cleanly to linux-next, -mm, and mainline. This >>> patchset touches multiple architectures (ia64, powerpc, x86) so I >>> guess that -mm is appropriate for this patchset (I don't care much >>> what tree would merge this though). >>> >>> This is tested on x86 but only compile tested on POWERPC and IA64. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> = >>> arch/ia64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 18 ++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 23 +++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-swiotlb.c | 48 +--------------- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 18 ++++++ >>> arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/kernel/pci-gart_64.c | 5 +- >>> arch/x86/kernel/pci-nommu.c | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb.c | 25 -------- >>> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 5 -- >>> include/linux/swiotlb.h | 11 ---- >>> lib/swiotlb.c | 102 ++++++++ >>> +----------------------- >>> 11 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 167 deletions(-) >> >> Hm, the functions and facilities you remove here were added as part >> of preparatory patches for Xen guest support. You were aware of >> them, you were involved in discussions about those aspects with Ian >> and Jeremy but still you chose not to Cc: either of them and you >> failed to address that aspect in the changelogs. >> >> I'd like the Xen code to become cleaner more than anyone else here i >> guess, but patch submission methods like this are not really >> helpful. A far better method is to be open about such disagreements, >> to declare them, to Cc: everyone who disagrees, and to line out the >> arguments in the changelogs as well - instead of just curtly >> declaring those APIs 'unused' and failing to Cc: involved parties. >> >> Alas, on the technical level the cleanups themselves look mostly >> fine to me. Ian, Jeremy, the changes will alter Xen's use of >> swiotlb, but can the Xen side still live with these new methods - in >> particular is dma_capable() sufficient as a mechanism and can the >> Xen side filter out DMA allocations to make them physically >> continuous? >> >> Ben, Tony, Becky, any objections wrt. the PowerPC / IA64 impact? If >> everyone agrees i can apply them to the IOMMU tree, test it and push >> it out to -next, etc. >> > > Ingo, > > With the exception of the patch I commented on, I think these look > OK from the powerpc point of view. I've successfully booted one of > my test platforms with the entire series applied and will run some > more extensive (i.e. not "Whee! A prompt!") tests tomorrow. Well, I am still testing. I've observed one unexpected LTP testcase failure with these patches applied, but so far have been unable to reproduce it. So these patches are probably OK, but I will look into this some more next week. -Becky > > > -Becky > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev