Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:45:44 +0100 From: Thomas Moestl <tmm@freebsd.org> To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Cc: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de>, sparc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with iommu_dvmamap_create Message-ID: <20030121114544.GA247@crow.dom2ip.de> In-Reply-To: <20030121114313.O80603@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> References: <20030117160857.GB304@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030117171317.F44530@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> <20030117171111.GC304@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030117181111.R45050@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> <20030117173303.GD304@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030120103814.X45050@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> <20030120151712.GA240@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030120161832.K45050@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> <20030120192946.GB240@crow.dom2ip.de> <20030121114313.O80603@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2003/01/21 at 11:46:55 +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Thomas Moestl wrote: > TM>On Mon, 2003/01/20 at 16:40:56 +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: > TM>> Starting at seg[17] the segments are simply wrong. The number of segments > TM>> in the tag is 39 so this should work. (The numbers are the phys address > TM>> and segment length). > TM> > TM>Hmmmm, looks like the printf() part of the size check is still intact, > TM>did you forget to remove the break statement maybe? I don't see > TM>anything else that would make it stop exactly at BUS_DMAMAP_NSEGS. > > With the attached patch it looks better - it removes the check for > BUS_DMAMAP_NSEGS and also adds a break for promoting the error from > load_buffer back to load_mbuf and exit the loop there in case of an error. The latter should not be necessary, since the loop guard checks the return value. > TM>Yes, but I strongly suspect that the bug is only hidden by it, > TM>probably because it corrects the semantics of IOMMU_MAX_PRE_SEG, which > TM>effectively results in preallocation being reduced by one segment. I > TM>finally managed to reproduce similar behaviour, and think I might have > TM>a real fix. Can you please revert the previous patch (just to get a > TM>clean environment for reproducing the behaviour) and try again with > TM>just the attached patch applied? > > That seems to work. I have reverted both the change to subr_rman.c and > iommu.c (1.14) before applying your patch. Great! I'll commit the fixes soon. Thanks for testing! - Thomas -- Thomas Moestl <tmoestl@gmx.net> http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0015675/ <tmm@FreeBSD.org> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tmm/ PGP fingerprint: 1C97 A604 2BD0 E492 51D0 9C0F 1FE6 4F1D 419C 776C To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030121114544.GA247>