From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE041BE0 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:43:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59F41E5A; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:43:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:43:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=hohE3F/msR6Jto8GYmPT2FeKX4l4eW3W1X33yiKNt5I=; b=YbedHMSTaPz/ uIvNSfyuGlIrZYDOIRNqEl0QeCw7TYz2mAXd5xToJdR/AxgUsXzkAx3iBQJZGYMp PIK7w8FCOMGKoPPdp4WjDaIdTDRBQ7Bk7yDVXhoEnJ7MgoalU2CxABtlgVlxopMj h+vgHnc7ii70fur7gP0PLzTuFpEGq0w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hohE3F/msR6Jto8GYmPT2FeKX4l4eW3W1X33yiKNt 5I=; b=qnmCEi3brzDCveyIysuiaLS2dlLT7GbrPKr2nTGhvrJtzdbQzuWxH4rmW 6ZvEfKYqcweblmSm6x4+S1qzFhrbGXIQhF/wtYvnn6k6MP0+PaQT5PMUT7BDyR1w 0IauWUGH52D9wAAUycwYw4gt+gXoUWQxpbz76rEIPLUfNlSYoTuAEMHH9tgqQufp LWT9B8874pfd/UZAjo6wcLI2Ms5lG4sP/OatV+cy5yeoY3Yd3Jma5fSXiO42U6uC 0OtQCTCg/mkW9YedxONJe6XK/f1Dg533AQTesDZILU6ZLD04p4a9fLYN8yiI8u6+ YS3DMqX2lT8dJ78B9QrJs6yocuJ0w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (217.85.136.77.rev.sfr.net [77.136.85.217]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0E484102F1; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:43:53 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Alejandro Lucero Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , "Burakov, Anatoly" Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 14:43:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2972511.zAN3OYqJLo@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20181107094456.23123-1-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mem: fix DMA mask width sanity check X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 13:44:00 -0000 07/11/2018 12:47, Ferruh Yigit: > On 11/7/2018 10:14 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 07-Nov-18 9:44 AM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > >> Current code has different max DMA mask width values for 32 and 64 > >> bits systems. IOMMU hardware could report a higher supported width > >> than current MAX_DMA_MASK_BITS when RTE_ARCH_64 is not defined. This > >> is actually true with a 32 bits kernel running in a 64 bits server > >> with IOMMU hardware. This could also be a problem with embedded systems > >> using an IOMMU designed for 64 bits in a 32 bits system. > >> > >> This patch leaves a single max DMA mask width which will make sure the > >> mask width is within the range for 64 bits variables used for DMA mask. > >> This also will avoid wrong values because any value higher than > >> 64 bits is likely wrong. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero > >> --- > > > > Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov > > Tested-by: Ferruh Yigit Fixes: 223b7f1d5ef6 ("mem: add function for checking memseg IOVA") Applied, thanks