From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:46:30 +0100
> Error reporting for the dma_map_single and dma_map_page operations is > currently a mess. Both APIs directly return the dma_addr_t to be used for > the DMA, with a magic error escape that is specific to the instance and > checked by another method provided. This has a few downsides: > > - the error check is easily forgotten and a __must_check marker doesn't > help as the value always is consumed anyway > - the error checking requires another indirect call, which have gotten > incredibly expensive > - a lot of code is wasted on implementing these methods > > The historical reason for this is that people thought DMA mappings would > not fail when the API was created, which sounds like a really bad > assumption in retrospective, and then we tried to cram error handling > onto it later on. > > There basically are two variants: the error code is 0 because the > implementation will never return 0 as a valid DMA address, or the error > code is all-F as the implementation won't ever return an address that > high. The old AMD GART is the only one not falling into these two camps > as it picks sort of a relative zero relative to where it is mapped. > > The 0 return doesn't work for a lot of IOMMUs that start allocating > bus space from address zero, so we can't consolidate on that, but I think > we can move everyone to all-Fs, which the patch here does. The reason > for that is that there is only one way to ever get this address: by > doing a 1-byte long, 1-byte aligned mapping, but all our mappings > are not only longer but generally aligned, and the mappings have to > keep at least the basic alignment. Please try to poke holes into this > idea as it would simplify our logic a lot, and also allow to change > at least the not so commonly used yet dma_map_single_attrs and > dma_map_page_attrs to actually return an error code and further improve > the error handling flow in the drivers. I have no problem with patch #1, it looks great. But patch #2 on the other hand, not so much. I hate seeing values returned by reference, it adds cost especially on cpus where all argments and return values fit in registers (we end up forcing a stack slot and memory references). And we don't need it here. DMA addresses are like pointers, and therefore we can return errors and valid success values in the same dma_addr_t just fine. PTR_ERR() --> DMA_ERR(), IS_PTR_ERR() --> IS_DMA_ERR, etc. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
