[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:02:04 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulus@...ba.org, anton@...ba.org, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: DMA APIs gumble grumble
>
> Please just mirror what I did on sparc64 for sparc32, see changeset
> 42f142371e48fbc44956d57b4e506bb6ce673cd7, with followup bug fixes
> in 36321426e320c2c6bc2f8a1587d6f4d695fca84c and
> 7233589d77fdb593b482a8b7ee867e901f54b593.
Question about sparc. It's implementation of pci_alloc_consistent(),
unlike the other ones from before we had a GFP mask massed, does
GFP_KERNEL allocations and not GFP_ATOMIC. Thus it's never expected to
be called in atomic context. In fact, it does various other things like
calling allocate_resource which is not something you ever want to be
called from interrupt context.
I'm splitting it into a pci_do_alloc_consistent that takes a gfp arg,
and a pair of pci_alloc_consistent & dma_alloc_consistent wrappers.
Do you think I should have the former pass GFP_KERNEL like the current
implementation does or switch it to GFP_ATOMIC like everybody does ? In
this case, should I also change the kmalloc done in there to allocate a
struct resource to use the gfp argument ? (It's currently doing
GFP_KERNEL).
Cheers,
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists