On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:00:13 +0000 Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Petr Tesařík <petr@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 10:51 PM > > > ... > > > Argh, you're right. This is a braino. The alignment mask is in fact an > > > INVERTED mask, i.e. it masks off bits that are not relevant for the > > > alignment. The more strict alignment needed the more bits must be set, > > > so the individual alignment constraints must be combined with an OR > > > instead of an AND. > > > > > > Can you apply the following change and check if it fixes the issue? > > > > Actually, this will not work either. The mask is used to mask off both > It works for me. Yes, as long as the original (non-bounced) address is aligned at least to a 2K boundary, it appears to work. ;-) > > high address bits and low address bits (below swiotlb slot granularity). > > > > What should help is this: > > ... > This also works for me. > > Thanks, *either* version can resolve the issue for me :-) Thank you for testing! I will write a proper commit message and submit a fix. Embarassing... *sigh* Can I add your Tested-by? Petr T
