On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:48:33PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Why can't we just resolve the conflict by adding the underscores? > > We can solve the conflict easily that way. But that's not the point. > > The point is that I've been fighting hard to consolidate dma code > given that the behavior really is common and not arch specific. And > this one is another case like that: the fact that the non-coherent > dma boundary is bigger than the exposed size is something that can > easily happen elsewhere, so there is no need to duplicate a lot > of code for that.
Fair enough, although I wouldn't say it's a *lot* of code being duplicated. Are there other architectures working around this issue too? I couldn't see anything in the other dma-direct.h headers. > Nevermind that the commit should at least be three different patches: > > (1) revert the broken original commit > (2) increase the dma min alignment > (3) put the swiotlb workaround in place I'd agree with you if this wasn't already queued and sitting in -next. Reverting what we currently have seems a bit OTT now. Catalin? Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
