From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:34:24 +1100
> Do you still think we should introduce this __dma_cacheline_aligned ? Do
> you see other cases of drivers where it would be useful ? It tend to
> agree with your earlier statement that drivers doing that are broken and
> should be using a separate allocator for DMA'ble objects (in fact, on
> non-cache coherent archs, kmalloc is just fine).
I don't care either way.
If we say that the DMA api works on "DMA cacheline boundaries"
(and in reality it does) we do need to either:
1) Require that entire buffers are commited by call sites,
and thus "embedding" DMA'd within non-DMA stuff isn't allowed
2) Add the __dma_cacheline_aligned tag.
But note that with #2 it could get quite ugly because the
alignment and size both have a minimum that needs to be
enforced, not just the alignment alone. So either:
struct foo {
unsigned int other_unrelated_stuff;
struct object dma_thing __dma_cacheline_aligned;
unsigned int more_nondma_stuff __dma_cacheline_aligned;
};
or:
struct foo {
unsigned int other_unrelated_stuff;
union {
struct object dma_thing __dma_cacheline_aligned;
char __pad[(sizeof(object) + DMA_CACHELINE_SIZE &
~DMA_CACHELINE_SIZE)];
} u;
unsigned int more_nondma_stuff __dma_cacheline_aligned;
};
I hope you see what I'm trying to say.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
