On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:07:20 -0600 Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Still seems overly complicated to me, but whatev. > > > > I think the way to handle this is pretty simple: set a flag in the dma > > entry when someone runs dma_mapping_error() and, if that flag wasn't > > set at unmap time, emit a loud warning. > > > > From my reading of the code, this patch indeed does that, along with a > > bunch of other (unnecessary?) stuff. But boy, the changelog conceals > > this information well! > > Are you referring to the system wide error counters when you say > unnecessary stuff. The reason I added those was to catch errors when > drivers don't do unmap. Several drivers fail to do unmap. Checking flag > from unmap debug interfaces, doesn't cover these cases. However, I think > the value of system wide counters is limited in the sense that they > don't really identify the driver that needs fixing. In that sense it can > be deemed unnecessary. I dropped them in v5 patch, which I am sending > out. hm. Could we keep a counter of the number of map/unmap calls within the dma object and then emit a warning if that is non-zero at teardown time? That should identify the offending driver. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
