Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:47:21 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Improve pci_alloc_consistent wrapper on preemptive kernels |
| |
At Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:07:57 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:16:28 -0400 > > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>1) Changing from GFP_ATOMIC to <something else> may break code > > > > > > x86-64 did it for a long time and I am not aware of problems with it > > (however I don't know how widespread CONFIG_PREEMPT use on x86-64 is) > > > > > >>2) Conversely from #1, I also worry why GFP_ATOMIC would be needed at > >>all. I code all my drivers to require that pci_alloc_consistent() be > >>called from somewhere that is allowed to sleep. > > > > > > Maybe you do, but others don't. > > Certainly. Therefore, changing from GFP_ATOMIC will increase likelihood > of breakage, no?
pci_alloc_consistent() was GFP_ATOMIC only on 2.4 anyway, so I don't expect there would be any breakage...
Takashi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |