Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-17 Thread Ulf Hansson
On 11 February 2014 18:28, Russell King wrote: > We must use a 64-bit for this, otherwise overflowed bits get lost, and > that can result in a lower than intended value set. > > Fixes: 8e0cb8a1f6ac ("ARM: 7797/1: mmc: Use dma_max_pfn(dev) helper for > bounce_limit calculations") > Fixes: 7d35496d

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-17 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:01:12PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07:01AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 17:11 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:10AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > This doe

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-13 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07:01AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 17:11 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:10AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > This doesn't really look like the right fix. You replaced dev->dma_mask > > > with a calc

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-13 Thread James Bottomley
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 17:11 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:10AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > This doesn't really look like the right fix. You replaced dev->dma_mask > > with a calculation on dev_max_pfn(). Since dev->dma_mask is always u64 > > and dev_

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-13 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:10AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > This doesn't really look like the right fix. You replaced dev->dma_mask > with a calculation on dev_max_pfn(). Since dev->dma_mask is always u64 > and dev_max_pfn is supposed to be returning the pfn of the dma_mask, it > should un

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-13 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 17:28 +, Russell King wrote: > We must use a 64-bit for this, otherwise overflowed bits get lost, and > that can result in a lower than intended value set. > > Fixes: 8e0cb8a1f6ac ("ARM: 7797/1: mmc: Use dma_max_pfn(dev) helper for > bounce_limit calculations") > Fixes:

Re: [PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-13 Thread Santosh Shilimkar
On Tuesday 11 February 2014 12:28 PM, Russell King wrote: > We must use a 64-bit for this, otherwise overflowed bits get lost, and > that can result in a lower than intended value set. > > Fixes: 8e0cb8a1f6ac ("ARM: 7797/1: mmc: Use dma_max_pfn(dev) helper for > bounce_limit calculations") > Fixe

[PATCH] Fix uses of dma_max_pfn() when converting to a limiting address

2014-02-11 Thread Russell King
We must use a 64-bit for this, otherwise overflowed bits get lost, and that can result in a lower than intended value set. Fixes: 8e0cb8a1f6ac ("ARM: 7797/1: mmc: Use dma_max_pfn(dev) helper for bounce_limit calculations") Fixes: 7d35496dd982 ("ARM: 7796/1: scsi: Use dma_max_pfn(dev) helper for