On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Hiroshi DOYU<Hiroshi.DOYU@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "ext Kanigeri, Hari" <h-kanigeri2@xxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] DSPBRIDGE: Compiler wanrning fix for unlocked_ioctl > Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:49:21 +0200 > >> Hi Doyu-san, >> >> Regarding >> >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=124201773423892&w=2 >> > I think that the first one should be merged into d.o-z.org now, but >> > for the second one about 128 byte alignment. let me know your >> > thought/plan on it. >> >> -- I think you sent this patch as a probable fix for the slab >> corruption that was observed in Bridge driver, but then we found >> that slab corruption was due to some other issue in Bridge driver >> and not due to the cache alignment. >> >> Irrespective of above point, I think it is good to enforce the cache >> alignment check, but I think the check should be in Proc Map >> function and to start with the check should be under a flag so as >> not to affect some MM applications that use padding to get over the >> alignment issue. > > I think that having configurable option may be reasonable practically, > at the moment. > > But how about the longer term solution? Do you have any plan on how to > deal with this? (ex: TI's OMX layer and some other userland client) Do > you continue the userland buffer padding solution for the futer > release? I don't know about TI's OMX layer, but I'm working on some direct GStreamer wrappers that already do the proper alignment. My plan currently is to keep working on gst-dsp until we have all the elements we need. After that's done we will be able to turn on the check in the kernel. Then, if I have time I might port the changes to TI's omx il. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
