WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] pvops dom0: no sound after boot; possibly causedbyswiotl

To: Ronny.Hegewald@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] pvops dom0: no sound after boot; possibly causedbyswiotlb
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:38:41 -0500
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:19:07 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4874651.4118551265400543057.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4874651.4118551265400543057.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:09:03PM +0100, Ronny.Hegewald@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> No, your first statement was correct. It would always return the same mask 
> >for 32-bit and 64-bit, because of the 32-bitness of the return-variable 
> >'dma_mask'.
> >> 
> >> So the following patch maybe would be more appropriate?
> >
> >I think it isn't neccessary. The 'dmal_alloc_coherent_mask' returns an
> >unsigned long. On 32-bit 'unsigned long' is a 4-byte value, and
> >on 64-bit that is 8-byte value. 
> 
> Oh yes, right, didnt thought about that ....
> 
> So I think your previous patch:
> >http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2010-02/msg00038.html
> >is correct as when it is compiled under 64-bit it would return a 64-bit
> >value and when compiled under 32-bit, it would return a 32-bit value.
> 
> As it seems that the patch wasn't noticed i will resend it. Can i add a 
> Reviewed-by (or Acked-by) from you to the patch, so it gets more attention?

Don't worry. Already pulled in:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git;a=commit;h=d2de41169c662e95ff3585d3fcf3cc0055307f27

Thanks for your work finding the culprit _and_ coming with a patch. Much 
appreciated!

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>