lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations
From
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-27 02:41    [W:0.080 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site