Hi,
On 7/23/19 5:38 PM, 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.
>
I am confused: if vring_use_dma_api() returns false if the dma_mask is
unset (ie. vring_use_dma_api() returns false), the virtio-blk-pci device
will not be able to get translated addresses and won't work properly.
The patch above allows the dma api to be used and only influences the
max_segment_size and it works properly.
So is it normal the dma_mask is unset in my case?
Thanks
Eric
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
