On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:07:36AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On mercoledì 30 marzo 2022 21:14:14 CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > The use of kmap() is being deprecated in favor of kmap_local_page()
> > where it is feasible. In file interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c,
> > function free_pagelist() calls kmap() / kunmap() from two places.
> >
> > With kmap_local_page(), the mapping is per thread, CPU local and not
> > globally visible. Therefore, free_pagelist() is a function where the
> > use of kmap_local_page() in place of kmap() is correctly suited.
> >
> > Convert to kmap_local_page() but, instead of open coding it, use the
> > memcpy_to_page() helper.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 13 +++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > index f0bfacfdea80..efb1383b5218 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > @@ -431,21 +431,18 @@ free_pagelist(struct vchiq_pagelist_info *pagelistinfo,
> > if (head_bytes > actual)
> > head_bytes = actual;
> >
> > - memcpy((char *)kmap(pages[0]) +
> > + memcpy_to_page(pages[0],
> > pagelist->offset,
> > fragments,
> > head_bytes);
> > - kunmap(pages[0]);
> > }
> > if ((actual >= 0) && (head_bytes < actual) &&
> > - (tail_bytes != 0)) {
> > - memcpy((char *)kmap(pages[num_pages - 1]) +
> > - ((pagelist->offset + actual) &
> > - (PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(g_cache_line_size - 1)),
> > + (tail_bytes != 0))
> > + memcpy_to_page(pages[num_pages - 1],
> > + (pagelist->offset + actual) &
> > + (PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(g_cache_line_size - 1),
> > fragments + g_cache_line_size,
> > tail_bytes);
> > - kunmap(pages[num_pages - 1]);
> > - }
> >
> > down(&g_free_fragments_mutex);
> > *(char **)fragments = g_free_fragments;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> Hi Greg,
>
> I've just received a message from you that says that a patch that I sent
> on March 31 has been applied to staging testing. I know that you usually
> apply patches in first come first served fashion (FIFO), therefore I wonder
> why this patch has not yet been applied.
>
> Please don't misunderstand me: I have no hurry. I'm asking only because
> I suspect that this patch, sent on March 30th) could have been overlooked
> since it has the very identical subject of another patch that I sent on
> the same day (or the day before, I'm not sure about it now) and which has
> already been applied. Therefore, they may appear to be the same patch,
> because the only difference is that the drivers are different.
I wanted to give others the chance to review this before applying it :)
