On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 09:48 +1100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:Ingo Molnar wrote:* FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a few days, but wanted to hear back from either Jeremy or BeckyWell, you don't need to wait, I think.
first about how well they actually work in their usecases.
All Jeremy and Becky need is adding highmem support to swiotlb. How we
support it doesn't matter. We can choose better one.
We all (including Jeremy) agreed that Becky's physical address scheme is
better (simpler) than Jeremy's struct page and offset scheme. Surely,
Becky's scheme works for Xen and him (Jeremy said that he tested it
lightly).
Jeremy said, when he submitted this series, shortly before Christmas:
Here's a work in progress series [...]
Quick testing showed no problems, but I haven't had the chance to do
anything extensive.
Jeremy, did you have a chance to do more testing with the current
tip/master bits on Xen, so that we can push it to Linus?
I'm going to be on vacation until the 12th, so I won't have a chance to
do anything until then (perhaps Ian will have a chance to poke at them
before then). I'm expecting Becky's patches to work as-is, or if not,
be easily fixed with a couple of small bugfix patches. So I say go
ahead if they work for everyone else.
Only just got out from under my pile of vacation backlog...
They don't quite work with Xen (at least the version in Jeremy's patch
queue doesn't) but I agree that it should be possible to make it work
and that there's no point in holding back just for Xen.