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;
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:57:55 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: remove block layer bounce buffering for MMC
Message-ID: <20190114165755.GA7456@lst.de>
References: <20190114095804.27978-1-hch@lst.de> <5d09d233-8631-2a35-cbcf-ba87b0314b3a@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5d09d233-8631-2a35-cbcf-ba87b0314b3a@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:52:40PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> One general point for the kmap() conversions - it's not obvious (to me at 
> least) whether or how that would work for a segment where sg->length > 
> PAGE_SIZE. Or is there some cast-iron guarantee from the MMC mid-layer that 
> it will never let the block layer generate such things in the first place?

None of this will with such segments.  But yes, I guess the old case
could have worked as long as any physical contigous ranges are also
virtually contigous.  So we might have to throw in a page size segment
boundary here.