Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:38:18 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations | From | FUJITA Tomonori <> |
| |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:19:17 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > > > >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 26.10.09 16:22 >>> > > >* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > > >> And any attempt to eliminate the conditional another way would just > > >> introduce a very similar conditional elsewhere; with this having a > > >> single user (and foreseeably not ever a second one) I would think this > > >> would just make the code less readable. > > > > > >There's 3 other current uses of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) in arch/x86 - couldnt > > >those use ISA_DMA_BIT_MASK too? > > > > Oh, so you didn't mean me to eliminate the conditional in pci-dma.c, > > but just to replace the DMA_BIT_MASK(24) here an elsewhere. Sure, I'm > > fine with adding this to the patch. > > Well, can ISA_BIT_MASK fall back to DMA_BIT_MASK(32) on !CONFIG_ISA? If > we have ISA support disabled we might as well pretend the whole world is > PCI, right?
I don't think that it works. At least, you can't do that with the DMA_BIT_MASK(24) in arch/x86/kernl/pci-dma.c; it must be DMA_BIT_MASK(24) even with !CONFIG_ISA.
> That way we'd get rid of that #ifdef in the .c code too.
Well, in the first place, we don't need the #ifdef in Jan's patch. We can always use DMA_BIT_MASK(24) for the fallback device.
| |