On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:56:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
> > > to kill the separate dma ops
On 2/19/21 3:32 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:56:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
>>> to kill the separate dma ops in X
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 04:56:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
> > to kill the separate dma ops in Xen swiotlb. If we compare xen-swiotlb
> > to swiotlb
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
> to kill the separate dma ops in Xen swiotlb. If we compare xen-swiotlb
> to swiotlb the main difference seems to be:
>
> - additional reasons to bounce I/O v
This patch converts several xen-swiotlb related variables to arrays, in
order to maintain stat/status for different swiotlb buffers. Here are
variables involved:
- xen_io_tlb_start and xen_io_tlb_end
- xen_io_tlb_nslabs
- MAX_DMA_BITS
There is no functional change and this is to prepare to enable
So one thing that has been on my mind for a while: I'd really like
to kill the separate dma ops in Xen swiotlb. If we compare xen-swiotlb
to swiotlb the main difference seems to be:
- additional reasons to bounce I/O vs the plain DMA capable
- the possibility to do a hypercall on arm/arm64
-
