[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] add new DMA_ADDR_T_SIZE define
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

> Yes true, storing the two consequetive 32-bit values is better
> for store buffer compression of the cpu. Using memset is much
> more inefficient because you push the full set of data once
> then you push non-compressible stores to the same data through
> the cpu.
> I'm not talking out of my ass, I've measured this.

So is the current wisdom something like "always treat dma_addr_t as a u64
and be happy"?


It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.036 / U:1.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site