| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 18 of 38] x86: unify pci iommu setup and allow sw
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 12:43 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:36:49 +0000
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 11:53 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > >
> > > > + BUG_ON(max_slots > 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - IO_TLB_SHIFT));
> > >
> > > How can this BUG_ON happen? Using u64 for the mask is fine though.
> >
> > It covers the cases where the previous code would have overflowed. It
> > can't happen right now because although mask is 64 bits the value
> > assigned to it is currently sizeof(unsigned long). If someone changes
> > the type of that field then we would start seeing unexpected values.
>
> If someone changes dma_get_seg_boundary to return a u64 value instead
> of unsigned long, this BUG_ON could happen on 32bit architectures. But
> you don't need to trigger BUG_ON for it. max_slots > 1UL <<
> (BITS_PER_LONG - IO_TLB_SHIFT) should be fine for
> iommu_is_span_boundary().
>
> Anyway, this is minor but would it be nice to make sure that anyone
> can easily understand the code without digging into the git log?
>
> a) dropping this patch and adding some comments how the code works
> (especially about the overflow on 32bit architectures).
>
> b) removing the BUG_ON in this patch and adding some comments.
Yes, I think adding a comment to the existing code (option a) would be
best. I actually have a small queue of other fixes which make swiotlb
work properly for x86 PAE and HighMem but they are not particularly well
baked at the moment. I'll include a patch to add a comment in that
series.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home