Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB bounce buffers

Date Prev

Date Next

Thread Prev

Thread Next

Date Index

Thread Index

To: Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB bounce buffers

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:04:09 +0200

Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>, Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>, James Seo <james@xxxxxxxxxx>, James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR ARM" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, open list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "open list:XEN SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "open list:SLAB ALLOCATOR" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, petr@xxxxxxxxxxx

In-reply-to: <cover.1690459412.git.petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com>

References: <cover.1690459412.git.petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com>

User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

I was just going to apply this, but patch 1 seems to have a non-trivial
conflict with the is_swiotlb_active removal in pci-dma.c.  Can you resend
against the current dma-mapping for-next tree?