On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 05:38:51PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:36:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> >> index c8be1c4f5b55..37c143971211 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> >> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ size_t virtio_max_dma_size(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >> {
> >> size_t max_segment_size = SIZE_MAX;
> >> - if (vring_use_dma_api(vdev))
> >> + if (vring_use_dma_api(vdev) && vdev->dev.dma_mask)
> >
> > Hmm, might it make sense to roll that check up into vring_use_dma_api()
> > itself? After all, if the device has no mask then it's likely that other
> > DMA API ops wouldn't really work as expected either.
>
> Makes sense to me.
Christoph - would a documented API wrapping dma_mask make sense?
With the documentation explaining how users must
desist from using DMA APIs if that returns false ...
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
