Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:53:19 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Robert P. J. Day" <> | Subject | Re: __get_free_pages: can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC? |
| |
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > first, can a call to __get_free_pages to allocate DMA-able > > memory omit specifying either of GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC? > > love's book on kernel development strongly suggests you need to > > specify one or the other, but there are a few instances in the > > tree like this: > > Sure that seems to be equivalent to GFP_ATOMIC with no access to > emergency pool memory. > > > and, second, i only noticed this as i was going to submit a > > short patch to replace __get_free_pages calls for DMA-able memory > > with the existing equivalent macro __get_dma_pages. is that still > > considered a worthwhile cleanup? there's not that many examples > > of it, and it would just make things consistent. > > Sure.
all right, then some of those __get_free_pages() calls would translate to calls of the form __get_dma_pages(0, ...) -- is that what you're saying? or would it be equivalent and preferable to put GFP_ATOMIC in there just so it looks not so weird?
rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - 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/
| |