Re: [PATCH 18 of 38] x86: unify pci iommu setup and allow swiotlb to compile for 32 bit

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 11:19 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:16:06 +0000
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > > For example, the following code assumes that the mask needs to be
> > > 64 bits.
> > 
> > The use of unsigned long for the mask is throughout the API and not
> > simply limited to swiotlb.c. All the callers of dma_set_seg_boundary
> > (PCI and SCSI subsys it seems) do not use a value >4G anywhere I can
> > see.
> 
> 32bit is large enough for dma segment boundary mask, I think.
> 
> The problem that I talked about in the previous mail:
> 
> > 	max_slots = mask + 1
> > 		    ? ALIGN(mask + 1, 1 << IO_TLB_SHIFT) >> IO_TLB_SHIFT
> > 		    : 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - IO_TLB_SHIFT);
> 
> Since the popular value of the mask is 0xffffffff. So the above code
> (mask + 1 ?) works wrongly if the size of mask is 32bit (well,
> accidentally the result of max_slots is identical though).

Ah, I hadn't spotted this, you are right it probably works but just by
chance. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > Presumably if something was we would see "warning: overflow in
> > implicit constant conversion" somewhere along the line. If no value is
> > set then the default is 0xffffffff which is safe on 32 bit.
> > 
> > I suspect that even with PAE addresses above 4G aren't seen very often
> > due to pre-existing subsystem specific bounce buffers or other existing
> > limitations (like network buffers being in lowmem).
> 
> I guess that you talk about the dma_mask (and coherent_dma_mask) in
> struct device. The dma segment boundary mask represents the different
> dma limitation of a device.

I was talking about the segment_boundary_mask in struct
device_dma_parameters which is the source of the "mask" value in the
code you quoted.

> > Perhaps dma_addr_t should be used though?
> 
> I think that 'unsigned long' is better for the dma segment boundary
> mask since it represents the hardware limitation. The size of the
> value are not related with kernel configurations at all.

Right, it's just that on occasion we have to cope with slightly larger
values while manipulating things.

Ian.