Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:00:51 +0000 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations |
| |
>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 26.10.09 21:19 >>> > >* 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? > >That way we'd get rid of that #ifdef in the .c code too.
I can certainly code it that way, but then we can't use it to replace any instance of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) used to derive the need for GFP_DMA. So I'm not sure elimination of which of the instances of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) is more desirable...
Jan
| |