Re: [Xen-devel] swiotlb

[Don Dutile <ddutile@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ky,
You are correct. I received this as a bugzilla on FC-5.  Testing a 
solution now (replacing copy_to_user w/copy_to_user_inatomic).
The other problem with the call to copy_to_user is that a kmap_atomic() 
is done just before it as well, and the thread can't be blocked before 
the kunmap_atomic() is invoked (after the copy_to_user()).
Unfortunately, tomorrow is company holiday, so I won't complete the 
testing until Monday; need to get more memory to force swiotlb's 
sync_single() to do the copy (due to bounce IO).
- Don


Ky Srinivasan wrote:
> Given that the function __sync_single() can be called in an interrupt
> context, why do we call a   potentially blocking function
> (__copy_to_user) from within this function?
>
> Regards,
>
> K. Y
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel