On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 05:26:24PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On Monday 12 November 2007 16:20:01 Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:21:04PM +0200, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > We make the dma_mapping_ops structure to point to our structure so
> > > that every DMA access goes through us. (This is the reason this only
> > > works for 64-bit guest. 32-bit guest doesn't yet have a dma_ops
> > > struct.)
> >
> > I need the same facility for Calgary for falling back to swiotlb if a
> > translation is disabled on some slot, and IB needs the same facility
> > for some IB adapters (e.g., ipath). Perhaps it's time to consider
> > stackable dma-ops (unless someone has a better idea...).
>
> That would make great sense and simplify implementations.
>
> How do you propose such an implementation? An array of function
> pointers for each possible call?
I was thinking of simply a chain of dma_ops (via dma_ops->prev_ops) ,
where it's the responsibility of each dma_ops implementation to call
or not call the corresponding entry in chain (prev_ops->op()). This
works well for Calgary (which will only use prev_ops selectively, and
I think it will work well for the IB folks. Will it work for you?
Cheers,
Muli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]