Someone willing to take a look?
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 06:51:59AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:15:45PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 07:50 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> Hmm... some comments on this one? like it or not?
>>
>>It sounds like it's fixing a
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:15:45PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 07:50 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> Hmm... some comments on this one? like it or not?
>
>It sounds like it's fixing a bug, but you don't really say. Have you seen this
>fail in the wild?
Hmm... as described in the
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 07:50 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> Hmm... some comments on this one? like it or not?
It sounds like it's fixing a bug, but you don't really say. Have you seen this
fail in the wild?
Which commit introduced the breakage?
cheers
___
L
Hmm... some comments on this one? like it or not?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 09:04:27PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On PowerPC, currently we support different value of PAGE_SIZE and different
>value of IOMMU Page Size.
>
>In case the PAGE_SIZE is 4K and the IOMMU Page Size is 16M, and driver
>asked for s
On PowerPC, currently we support different value of PAGE_SIZE and different
value of IOMMU Page Size.
In case the PAGE_SIZE is 4K and the IOMMU Page Size is 16M, and driver
asked for some DMA less than 16M, the current calculation would return 0
and the following allocation in iommu_alloc() would
