On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 01:09:26PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:57:13AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > Do you have any numbers to back this up? You don't seem to address
> > > > dma_direct_alloc() either but, as I said above, it's not trivial since
> > > > some platforms expect certain physical range for DMA allocations.
> > >
> > > What's the dma_direct_alloc() here about? Mind elaborating?
> >
> > I just did a grep for dma_alloc_from_contiguous() in the 5.1-rc1 kernel
> > and came up with __dma_direct_alloc_pages(). Should your patch cover
> > this as well?
>
> I don't get the meaning of "cover this" here. What missing part
> do you refer to?
What I meant, do you need this hunk as well in your patch?
diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
index fcdb23e8d2fc..8955ba6f52fc 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
@@ -111,8 +111,7 @@ struct page *__dma_direct_alloc_pages(struct device *dev,
size_t size,
again:
/* CMA can be used only in the context which permits sleeping */
if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp)) {
- page = dma_alloc_from_contiguous(dev, count, page_order,
- gfp & __GFP_NOWARN);
+ page = dma_alloc_from_contiguous(dev, count, page_order, gfp);
if (page && !dma_coherent_ok(dev, page_to_phys(page), size)) {
dma_release_from_contiguous(dev, page, count);
page = NULL;
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
