Re: PROBLEM REMAINS: [sata_nv ADMA breaks ATAPI] Crash on accessing DVD-RAM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 16:29 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, I concur for the short term.  The other two possible courses of
action either involve long discussions (the different device one) or
you'll never quite be sure you got all the paths (the GFP_DMA32 one).
At least with this one, you know everything will work.
The different device one is tricky because the PCI layer is involved in
mapping on some systems so you can't just magic up a platform device for
it. Putting a mask on the block queue might perhaps work as a model
which avoids breaking stuff by suprise, with the device left at 32bit
masking.

Actually, you might be able to ... that's why I'm suggesting it.  There
are two pieces of information the arch layer needs to know:  what is the
dma_mask and where is the iommu/bridge/whatever.  When we went to the
generic dma_map_ API on parisc, we found you simply get the one from
struct device and for the other you walk up the device tree until you
find what you're looking for.

I'm not suggesting we invent a dummy pci_device ... I'm suggesting we
dma_map on the existing scsi_device, which is properly parented to the
pci_device.  The problem with this approach will be any architecture
which blindly expects dma_map converts to pci_dma_map; however, I'm not
sure we have any of those left.

I've tried the dumb solution of setting the mask on the PCI device (for both ports) whenever an ATAPI device is detected, and ran into problems with that. If we really need to keep the block queue bounce limit and DMA mask the same, then we then have to set the bounce limit on both ports as well. If you blindly do that from slave_config, though, then you blow up since on the first port's initial slave_config the block queue for the second port isn't allocated yet, so you'd have to detect that case somehow. And if it's done via hotplug after the other port is already in use, it'll be changing the limits on a port that's in active use, which seems like it could be a bit racy.

So, any ideas? Maybe using the separate struct device is the easiest solution, if it'll work..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux