On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:01:19PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> From: Sricharan R
>
> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks
> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without
> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those p
Thanks, applied to the dma mapping tree for 4.16, including the Fixes
tag.
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> [sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:48:37 +0100
Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 14:25 -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > I didn't know about chipsec but reading the code seems to rely on an
> > out-of-tree kernel module. I don't think it matches what we need
> > here.
>
> Yes good indeed, I had f
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> [sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
>
>
> On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> [...]
>
>
> Co
On 22/02/18 11:22, miles.c...@mediatek.com wrote:
From: Miles Chen
Marty reported a memory leakage introduced by commit 3aaabbf1c39e
("lib/dma-debug.c: fix incorrect pfn calculation"). Fix it
by checking the virtual address before allocating the entry.
Oops, seems I failed to look closely eno
[sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
[...]
Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
As I explained before, the no
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> [...]
>
> Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
>
On 22/02/18 09:03, Yisheng Xie wrote:
[...]
>> +/* Is it already bound to this device? */
>> +list_for_each_entry(tmp, &io_mm->devices, mm_head) {
>> +if (tmp->dev != dev)
>> +continue;
>> +
>> +bond = tmp;
From: Miles Chen
Marty reported a memory leakage introduced by commit 3aaabbf1c39e
("lib/dma-debug.c: fix incorrect pfn calculation"). Fix it
by checking the virtual address before allocating the entry.
This patch also use virt_addr_valid() instead of virt_to_page()
to check if a virtual address
On 21/02/18 20:12, kbuild test robot wrote:
[...]
> config: arm64-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
[...]
>aarch64-linux-gnu-ld: arch/arm64/kernel/head.o: relocation R_AARCH64_ABS32
> against `_kernel_offset_le_lo32' can not be used when making a shared object
>arch/arm64/kernel/head.o: I
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:19:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
...
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c b/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> index 53f7275..cfb42f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static int imx_gpc_old_dt_init(struct device *d
Hi Jean,
On 2018/2/22 14:23, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> @@ -129,7 +439,10 @@ int iommu_sva_device_shutdown(struct device *dev)
> int iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, int
> *pasid,
> unsigned long flags, void *drvdata)
> {
> + int i,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> [...]
Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
As I explained before, the normally happening fast path
14 matches
Mail list logo
