On Nov 16, 2007 3:57 AM, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Compile fix for new code in -rc2. > > I'm not positive about the insertion point... > > Subject: compile error fix (needs review) > > RT changes __list_splice to require prev and next pointers. > > This changes the use in the new code to list_splice_tail, > but the optimal insertion point needs to be analyzed. > > Signed-off-by: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@xxxxxxx> > > --- > drivers/dma/ioat_dma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: linux-2.6.23/drivers/dma/ioat_dma.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.23.orig/drivers/dma/ioat_dma.c > +++ linux-2.6.23/drivers/dma/ioat_dma.c > @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static dma_cookie_t ioat_tx_submit(struc > /* write address into NextDescriptor field of last desc in chain */ > to_ioat_desc(ioat_chan->used_desc.prev)->hw->next = > first->async_tx.phys; > - __list_splice(&new_chain, ioat_chan->used_desc.prev); > + list_splice_tail(&new_chain, ioat_chan->used_desc.prev); > NAK. These functions do insertions differently. The 'prev' is pointing to the last valid descriptor in the queue and you really want to get the new_chain stuck on after this. Your list_splice_tail() will insert the new_chain just before it which will muck up the order of the DMA requests. You might have more success with list_splice_tail(&new_chain, ioat_chan->used_desc); where used_desc points to the whole list, rather than using the .prev pointer to a specific node. Please copy me on future ioatdma related comments. Thanks, sln -- ====================================================================== Mr. Shannon Nelson LAN Access Division, Intel Corp. Shannon.Nelson@xxxxxxxxx I don't speak for Intel (503) 712-7659 Parents can't afford to be squeamish. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
