Re: Contigmalloc regression seen on latest 7.x and 8.x branches

On Monday 29 June 2009 20:27:58 Alan Cox wrote:
>
> "ret" is a virtual address.  What is the underlying physical address?

Hi,

It looks like the physical address is correct according to my printouts.

The regression issue boils down to misleading printouts from the following 
files, which should/can then be removed:

/usr/8-current/src/sys/amd64/amd64/busdma_machdep.c:            
printf("bus_dmamem_alloc failed to align memory properly.\n");
/usr/8-current/src/sys/i386/i386/busdma_machdep.c:              
printf("bus_dmamem_alloc failed to align memory properly.\n");
/usr/8-current/src/sys/ia64/ia64/busdma_machdep.c:              
printf("bus_dmamem_alloc failed to align memory properly.\n");

contigmalloc: size=0x00008000, flag=2, low=0x00000000 high=0xffffffff 
alignment=0x00008000 boundary=
0x00000000
contigmalloc: ret=0xe5af2000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01670000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01671000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01672000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01673000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01674000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01675000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01676000
contigmalloc: vtophys(ret)=0x01677000
bus_dmamem_alloc failed to align memory properly.
bus_dmamem_alloc = 0
pg->physaddr = 0x01670000, nseg=1
bus_dmamap_load = 0
0x01670000, 0xe5af2000
ihfc1: <HFC-2BDS0 128K PCI ISDN adapter> port 0xa400-0xa407 mem 
0xf5004000-0xf50040ff irq 18 at devi
ce 8.0 on pci1
ihfc1: [ITHREAD]
ihfc1: Attaching I4B controller 1.
ihfc1: Creating /dev/ihfc1.X.

--HPS