On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:40:12 +0200 Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the event that we want to change the layout of the ccw_io_region in the > future[1], it might be easier to work with it as a pointer within the > vfio_ccw_private struct rather than an embedded struct. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/22228541/ > > Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 12 +++++++++++- > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > @@ -114,6 +114,14 @@ static int vfio_ccw_sch_probe(struct subchannel *sch) > private = kzalloc(sizeof(*private), GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA); > if (!private) > return -ENOMEM; > + > + private->io_region = kzalloc(sizeof(*private->io_region), > + GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA); Any particular reason for this to be under 2G? Looking through the code, I did not spot a place where we feed things in there directly to an interface that is 2G sensitive. I'm inclined to just keep it for now (as the structure it was taken from was also allocated below 2G), but this might be a remainder of the original implementation that was not using idals (and we might be able to get rid of GFP_DMA here). But maybe I'm just missing coffee :) > + if (!private->io_region) { > + kfree(private); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > private->sch = sch; > dev_set_drvdata(&sch->dev, private); >
