On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:26:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:33:11AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > I feel it's similar to my previous set, which did most of these > > internally except the renaming part. But Catalin had a concern > > that some platforms might have limits on CMA range [1]. Will it > > be still okay to do the fallback internally? > > > > [1: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg714295.html ] > > Catalins statement is correct, but I don't see how it applies to > your patch. Your patch just ensures that the fallback we have > in most callers is uniformly applied everywhere. The non-iommu > callers will still need to select a specific zone and/or retry > just the page allocator with other flags if the CMA (or fallback) > page doesn't match what they need. dma-direct does this correctly > and I think the arm32 allocator does as well, although it is a bit > hard to follow sometimes.
Okay. I will revise and submit the patches then. I think we can still discuss on this topic once we have the changes. Thanks _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
