On Saturday 31 July 2010 23:03:11 FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:07:06 -0400 > > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I took your patch and was trying to fit it over the > > stable/swiotlb-0.8.4 branch and when I did so a found couple of things.. > > > > > > @@ -215,14 +222,14 @@ swiotlb_late_init_with_default_size(size_t > > > > default_size) bytes = io_tlb_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT; > > > > You should also initialize the __io_tlb_start array first: > > Yeah, I know. As I wrote, this patchset breaks IA64. > > I really merge to swiotlb's two memory allocator mechanisms > (swiotlb_init_with_default_size and > swiotlb_late_init_with_default_size). I need to look at the x86 memory > boot code after memblock surgery finishes. <nods> > > And as you know, I've not fixed the error path and swiotlb_free. I'll > do later if people are not against swiotlb dynamic allocation. It looks to me like it would be a good patch. I am curious about the handling of the -ENOMEM stage. Naturally we would return an error the device - are the most common ones (ahci, r8169, ata_piix - those that are DMA_32) equipped to deal with unavailable memory? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html