Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 03 of 38] swiotlb: allow architectures tooverrideswiotlb pool allocation

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> Not directly related to this patch alone, but to the combined set of changes
> to swiotlb: I don't see any handling of CONFIG_HIGHMEM here (or at least
> a note that this a known limitation needing work). I mention this because
> this was the largest part of the changes I had posted long ago to make
> lib/swiotlb.c Xen-ready, and which got rejected due to their ugliness.
>   

Was that Andi's objection on the grounds that he didn't think that Xen 
should need swiotlb at all?

I have to admit I didn't follow that thread very closely (or threads, as 
I seem to remember).  Do you have a pointer to the pertinent bits?

> While perhaps less intrusive to take care of, I also didn't see an equivalent
> of the range_straddles_page_boundary() logic, without which I can't see
> how this would work in the common case.
>   
Could you be more specific?  The swiotlb allocation should be machine 
contiguous and so there's no stradding required, but I think I'm missing 
your point.

   J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/