From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751018AbZHOIqo (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:46:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750837AbZHOIqn (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:46:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:47643 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750798AbZHOIqm (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:46:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:46:35 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: joerg.roedel@amd.com, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-debug: Allow archs to override check_for_illegal_area Message-ID: <20090815084635.GA15719@elte.hu> References: <1250005381-17903-1-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <20090812085440.GA14114@elte.hu> <20090814.130259.122634755.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090814.130259.122634755.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:54:40 +0200 > > > > > * Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > >> For some architectures (like sparc32) the default > >> check_for_illegal_area function does not work reliable. This patch > >> makes this function a weak symbol allowing architectures to > >> override it if necessary. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel > >> --- > >> lib/dma-debug.c | 9 ++++++--- > >> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Dave, you indicated that sparc32 would address this problem > > differently. Do we still need this patch (for .31 for example)? > > Don't worry about this purely for sparc32's sake. > > We can revisit this patch if I can't sort out the sparc32 issue > locally. Ok, thanks David! Ingo