On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 15:23 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:30:29PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 18:51 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > >> > > * therefore, all the is_odd junk goes away > > >> > > * fix a bug in iwl_hcmd_queue_reclaim where it would reclaim all the > > >> > > fragments of a descriptor rather than all descriptors (this may be > > >> > > the cause of the dma unmapping problem I reported) > > >> > > * some more cleanups > > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Tested on 5000 hw, please apply. > > >> > > > >> > Great job, however do not apply this before I review it I had strong > > >> > feeling this will not > > >> > work with aggregation flows. > > >> > > >> I cannot imagine why you think that, care to explain? > > > > Yep, no connection I thought at the first glance you've thatched more code. > > > > > > Of course, I would very much appreciate you review the actual bug fix in > > > iwl_hcmd_queue_reclaim, which consist of the addition of the line > > > > > > + bd = &txq->bd[index]; > > > > Okay I found the source of the evil, with your big pointer :) > > The bug caused by this memory optimization juggling we've done and > > very bad cut and paste coding > > We moved for command buffers from pcI_alloc consitent to kmalloc which > > required pci mapping that that was coded wrongly. Now this kmalloc > > stuff is not good as well since we have this 36 bit memory limitation > > on 64 bit platforms. > > This is the issue I'm trying to address recently I'm not sure what yet > > what allocation schema would be best yet. > > What if we just revert that patch? Doesn't help, still crashes right away with 64k pages. Not sure that even is a regression though. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
