Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:02:16PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: >> > If >> > ddbd89deb7d3 alone turns out to work OK then I'd be inclined to try a >> > partial revert of just that one hunk. >> > >> >> I'm not against being pragmatic and doing the partial revert. But as >> explained above, I do believe for correctness of swiotlb we ultimately >> do need that change. So if the revert is the short term solution, >> what should be our mid-term road-map? > > Unless I'm misunderstanding this thread we found the bug in ath9k > and have a fix for that now? According to Maxim's comment on the other subthread, that ath9k patch wouldn't work on all platforms (and constitutes a bit of a violation of the DMA API ownership abstraction). So not quite, I think? -Toke
