On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 15:08 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > Are you ok with the system wide and per device error counts I added? Any
> > comments on the overall approach?
>
> The general approach of having error counters is fine. But the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Are you ok with the system wide and per device error counts I added? Any
> comments on the overall approach?
The general approach of having error counters is fine. But the addresses
allocated/addresses checked thing should be done per a
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:45 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:34 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:45:15PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > Yeah. I will firm up my ideas a bit and
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:42:49PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:34 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:45:15PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > Yeah. I will firm up my ideas a bit and summarize in a day or two. Would
> > > like to hear your ideas as well a
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:34 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:45:15PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > Yeah. I will firm up my ideas a bit and summarize in a day or two. Would
> > like to hear your ideas as well at that time, so we can pick the one
> > that works the best.
>
> I
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:45:15PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Yeah. I will firm up my ideas a bit and summarize in a day or two. Would
> like to hear your ideas as well at that time, so we can pick the one
> that works the best.
I think the best approach for this functionality is to add a flag to
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 13:23 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:52:52AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 09:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > > > check_unmap():
> > > > This is an existing internal routines that checks for unmap
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:52:52AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 09:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > > check_unmap():
> > > This is an existing internal routines that checks for unmap errors,
> > > changed to increment dma_unmap_errors for the current device, as
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 09:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > check_unmap():
> > This is an existing internal routines that checks for unmap errors,
> > changed to increment dma_unmap_errors for the current device, as well
> > as the dma_unmap_errors counter for the system, dma-d
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 08:45:58AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:07 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:52:51PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > +void debug_dma_dump_map_errors(struct device *dev, int all)
> > > +{
> > > + if (all) {
> > > + dev_info(dev
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:07 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:52:51PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > +void debug_dma_dump_map_errors(struct device *dev, int all)
> > +{
> > + if (all) {
> > + dev_info(dev,
> > +"DMA-API: DMA map error summary:\n"
> > +
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:52:51PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> A recent dma mapping error analysis effort showed that a large percentage
> of dma_map_single() and dma_map_page() returns are not checked for mapping
> errors.
>
> Reference:
> http://linuxdriverproject.org/mediawiki/index.php/DMA_Mapp
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:52:51PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> +void debug_dma_dump_map_errors(struct device *dev, int all)
> +{
> + if (all) {
> + dev_info(dev,
> + "DMA-API: DMA map error summary:\n"
> + "DMA map errors returned = %d\n"
> +
13 matches
Mail list logo
