On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 02:37:58PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 16/08/2019 14:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Instead of taking apart the dma address in both callers do it inside
>> dma_cache_maint itself.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/xen/mm.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
>> index 90574d89d0d4..d9da24fda2f7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/xen/mm.c
>> @@ -43,13 +43,15 @@ static bool hypercall_cflush = false;
>> /* functions called by SWIOTLB */
>> -static void dma_cache_maint(dma_addr_t handle, unsigned long offset,
>> - size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir, enum dma_cache_op op)
>> +static void dma_cache_maint(dma_addr_t handle, size_t size,
>> + enum dma_data_direction dir, enum dma_cache_op op)
>> {
>> struct gnttab_cache_flush cflush;
>> unsigned long xen_pfn;
>> + unsigned long offset = handle & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> size_t left = size;
>> + offset &= PAGE_MASK;
>
> Ahem... presumably that should be handle, not offset.
Ooops, yes.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
