On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:28:56 +0400 Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi. > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 01:33:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > I don't think the 2-year-old Vaio has offload engine support ;) Dan, this: > > > > + if (flags & ASYNC_TX_KMAP_DST) > > + dest_buf = kmap_atomic(dest, KM_USER0) + dest_offset; > > + else > > + dest_buf = page_address(dest) + dest_offset; > > + > > + if (flags & ASYNC_TX_KMAP_SRC) > > + src_buf = kmap_atomic(src, KM_USER0) + src_offset; > > + else > > + src_buf = page_address(src) + src_offset; > > + > > + memcpy(dest_buf, src_buf, len); > > + > > + if (flags & ASYNC_TX_KMAP_DST) > > + kunmap_atomic(dest_buf, KM_USER0); > > + > > + if (flags & ASYNC_TX_KMAP_SRC) > > + kunmap_atomic(src_buf, KM_USER0); > > + > > > > is very wrong if both ASYNC_TX_KMAP_DST and ASYNC_TX_KMAP_SRC can ever be > > set. We'll end up using the same kmap slot for both src add dest and we > > get either corrupted data or a BUG. > > So far it can not since the only user is raid code, which only allows to > perform either reading from bio or writing into one, which requires only > one mapping. hm, so we got lucky? > Btw, shouldn't it always be kmap_atomic() even if flag is not set. > That pages are usual one returned by alloc_page(). The code would work OK if the kmap_atomic()s were unconditional, but it would be a bit more expensive if the page is in highmem and we don't actually intend to access it with the CPU. kmap_atomic() against a non-highmem page is basically free: just an additional test_bit(). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
