Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp861286imn; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48KvHlk0LhLFRuQRyCTIqf3t0yApIdl5ZBJTAhNgE7sxXwzBLRH7/Hm8tr+O00SA7j1l5wN X-Received: by 10.98.133.212 with SMTP id m81mr112981pfk.61.1522170418395; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522170418; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Eek4CzoYgRBrd6b0prtdX8qJERLrI7nrXgm/hqWhP5G/bVYM7qW+zqdbN9w3wciWOD zBH8XM2QEnvYKwFJqFB62uAixk6WnQnTcO4a4g7eGrgNn17LVwuKN6yoLe7ojEb4E1Sj IVtJElbOD4XNTFORn37dQwo8VBJM2yl0H9DUAnlQdeJkcEWIbusrL+gl7Nw0R10RPfQa 8OFKn6Pox3bNynOJwHWOVW2SMJuBGoPA0tyFSmsN5sDo0ODzgxZq9ysZrNevHThfNobn zM98MzwDt3ARJ2mHsfiot9jsTnzasETuhHAxgSbVRes+iuLY/F6TUXYBjsYANCGV+ZMr oABw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:mime-version:organization :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=OfsISsEEFBEUPFWVZFIuae8Masj1ejTFTise6Tbi4g4=; b=V4GEg+TwZx6cnm+Ay8K9vfJLP31Zt0pOx+rGm4qdLTLWhTEyaWuUpkuih4mabgVp0R oJ12QXeH2oS2pYwZjzoy4MJwdOOJhhDa15Ug1N3IpnErslZ85vdKIcA9hyw4EwY5e/ZT +ZN6jbPRODQH8Pbm2jGEsLutLFo92QhtSG6Vx53XrZI2NQbOJlD0kNaxWbGd4igtRTj2 CppRzDVhE+L1yeLxhvo3d1ratv3l0pQDV6W+Ou64NW0hVczr/BlkJXyJUIxRy6607rbP ZWBBvNK1nqcVmoKjljEwh6WQPyj5sktzCmM1Tp1mjW3PjPXgqwd2X/scwuc2JHgxVJ9P H45g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r2si1115355pgp.704.2018.03.27.10.06.42; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754275AbeC0RFA (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:05:00 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:39352 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753523AbeC0RE6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:04:58 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2RH0L0G034557 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:04:57 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gyrpsc2aa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:04:57 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:04:55 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:04:54 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w2RH4rgU56099026; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:04:53 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43136AE053; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:55:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979C7AE045; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:55:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from icon-9-164-138-90.megacenter.de.ibm.com (unknown [9.164.138.90]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:55:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:04:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Sebastian Ott X-X-Sender: sebott@schleppi To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Jesper Nilsson , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: dma_zalloc_coherent broken with 57bf5a8963f80fb3828c46c3e3a5b2dd790e09a7 In-Reply-To: <20180327164505.GA10522@lst.de> References: <20180327143341.GA4968@lst.de> <20180327164505.GA10522@lst.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LFD 202 2017-01-01) Organization: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22IBM_Deutschland_Research_&_Development_GmbH?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?_=2F_Vorsitzende_des_Aufsichtsrats=3A_Martina?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?_Koederitz_Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung=3A_Dirk_Wittkopp?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?_Sitz_der_Gesellschaft=3A_B=F6blingen_=2F_Reg?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?istergericht=3A_Amtsgericht_Stuttgart=2C_HRB_2432?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?94=22?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18032717-0008-0000-0000-000004E2E07C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18032717-0009-0000-0000-00001E761BF4 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-03-27_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=3 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1803270171 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 05:24:10PM +0200, Sebastian Ott wrote: > > What do you mean by current implementations? Arch specific code? At least > > on s390 we don't do that. dma-mapping.h doesn't do it either. > > The arch implementations should do it. Seems like s390 and potentially > a few others don't. I'm a little slow due to a cast on one arm, but I'll > do an audit and will fix up anything I'll find. What was wrong with the old behavior (let the caller decide - the same as with memory allocations)? We have interfaces like dma_zalloc_coherent, which explicitely set __GFP_ZERO. We have callers of dma_alloc followed by a manually memset.. Sebastian