Hi Laura, You can find the patch here: http://patchwork.kernerl.xyz/patch/6967161/ I will send this patch again and cc to you. Best regards Haibo > -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Abbott [mailto:labbott@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:27 AM > To: Chen Haibo-B51421; Jiri Slaby; Ulf Hansson > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux kernel mailing list > Subject: Re: [RFC] sdhci: fix DMA leaks [was: [SHDCI] Heavy (thousands) > DMA leaks] > > On 08/06/2015 02:17 AM, Chen Bough wrote: > > I will format a patch based on your diff file firstly. I will test > > this on my side, If any issue, like dma issue or performance issue, I > will add some modification. > > Then I will send the patch for review, and you can test the patch on > your platform. > > > > Best Regards > > Haibo Chen > > > > Did I miss the follow up patch or is this still pending? If it's still > pending, would you mind Ccing me when it's available for testing? > > Thanks, > Laura > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jiri Slaby [mailto:jslaby@xxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:07 PM > >> To: Chen Haibo-B51421; Ulf Hansson > >> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux kernel mailing list > >> Subject: Re: [RFC] sdhci: fix DMA leaks [was: [SHDCI] Heavy > >> (thousands) DMA leaks] > >> > >> On 08/06/2015, 09:42 AM, Chen Bough wrote: > >>> I read your attached log and patch, yes, dma memory leak will happen > >>> when more than one pre_request execute. The method of ++next->cookie > >>> is not good, your patch seems good, but I still need some time to > >>> test the patch, because you unmap the dma in sdhci_finish_data > >>> rather than > >> the sdhci_post_req. > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> yes, this is not correct. We can perhaps differentiate according to > >> the COOKIE value. Should I fix it or are you going to prepare a patch > >> based on my RFC? > >> > >> thanks, > >> -- > >> js > >> suse labs ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��i��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
