On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 09:51:23AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Hi, > > sorry for the lat response, as I've been traveling in the last weeks. > > At Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:53:02 +0100, > Russell King wrote: > > > > This code sequence is unsafe in modules: > > > > static u64 mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(something); > > ... > > if (!dev->dma_mask) > > dev->dma_mask = &mask; > > > > as if a module is reloaded, the mask will be pointing at the original > > module's mask address, and this can lead to oopses. Moreover, they > > all follow this with: > > > > if (!dev->coherent_dma_mask) > > dev->coherent_dma_mask = mask; > > > > where 'mask' is the same value as the statically defined mask, and this > > bypasses the architecture's check on whether the DMA mask is possible. > > > > Fix these issues by using the new dma_coerce_coherent_and_mask() > > function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Applied with Mark's ack now. Which is a very stupid thing to do because you won't have dma_coerce_coherent_and_mask() in your tree, so all these drivers will fail to build for you. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
