Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I meant we should detect failure to allocate bounce buffers in in
>>> swiotlb_init() instead of panicing.
>>>
>>> I meant swiotlb_map_single() should either panic or simply fail.
>>>
>>> If I have read lib/swiotlb.c correctly the only place we allocate a
>>> bounce buffer is in swiotlb_map_single. If there are more places we can
>>> allocate bounce buffers those need to be handled as well.
>>
>> ok, will give it a try.
>
> please check if you are ok with attached.
>
It looks like the right direction. Certainly enough to test and see if
the code will work.
I don't see the point of adding a nopanic case to the swiotlb
initialization. That just looks like unnecessary complications.
Certainly a nopanic case implemented by passing a nopanic parameter
looks like the wrong way to go. At most you want to return an error
code and do:
swiotlb_init()
{
if (swiotlb_init_with_default_size() == -ENOMEM)
panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB buffer");
}
The page freeing in swiotlb_init_with_tbl appears to be in the wrong
function. I suggest looking at swiotlb_late_init which apparently is
allowed to fail for some ideas.
> looks like it need more change of lines.
The size of the change matters less than how clean and maintainable the
result is. If done carefully I expect you can have net fewer lines but
not needing to handle the case when the swiotlb apis are unavailable.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
