From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar  3 00:15:29 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897CE8E6
 for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 Mar 2013 00:15:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mlfbsd@kanar.ci0.org)
Received: from kanar.ci0.org (unknown
 [IPv6:2a01:e0b:1:150:ca0a:a9ff:fef1:a4c9])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F762A69
 for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 Mar 2013 00:15:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kanar.ci0.org (pluxor@localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by kanar.ci0.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r230F4cr055043;
 Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:15:04 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from mlfbsd@kanar.ci0.org)
Received: (from mlfbsd@localhost)
 by kanar.ci0.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r230F4HH055042;
 Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:15:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mlfbsd)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:15:04 +0100
From: Olivier Houchard <mlfbsd@ci0.org>
To: Thomas Skibo <ThomasSkibo@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: A bug in busdma_machdep-v6.c?
Message-ID: <20130303001504.GA55003@ci0.org>
References: <51329325.7070301@sbcglobal.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51329325.7070301@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor <freebsd-arm.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:15:29 -0000

On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 04:02:45PM -0800, Thomas Skibo wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> I've been trying to solve a tcp checksum bug and I think I see a problem 
> in _bus_dmamap_load_buffer():
> 
> In the following code bit, a segment is tacked onto the previous 
> segment's slist[] entry if it is adjacent to the previous segment in 
> virtual memory.  That's okay if all cache operations use virtual 
> addresses but if the level 2 cache operations need physical addresses 
> (ARM_L2_PIPT), the physical address of the second segment is lost.  I 
> don't think bus_dmamap_sync() is properly wb/invalidating the second 
> segment from the level 2 cache.
> 

Hi Thomas,

That makes sense. I'll commit your patch tomorrow if nobody else does it before.

Thanks !

Olivier