Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965250AbWEOVVZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965257AbWEOVVY (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:24 -0400 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:33669 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965256AbWEOVVW (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 21 of 53] ipath - use phys_to_virt instead of bus_to_virt From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Roland Dreier Cc: openib-general@openib.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Segher Boessenkool In-Reply-To: References: <4e0a07d20868c6c4f038.1147477386@eng-12.pathscale.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:21:21 -0700 Message-Id: <1147728081.2773.25.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 796 Lines: 22 On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 08:50 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > Actually I NAK'ed this patch. It compiles the same thing on x86_64 > but makes the source code wrong -- dma_map_single() returns a bus > address, not a physical address. As Segher mentioned, bus_to_virt is unportable, so it's definitely the wrong thing to use. I don't recall what you suggested instead, but I seem to recall that the discussion kind of went "oh, right, the layering is all broken". Any ideas? Should this turn from a one-liner into a big-refactor-for-2.6.18 patch?