[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20702071436s3e481c13ue1fe70cc68f19f27@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:36:52 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Leech, Christopher" <christopher.leech@...el.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
"Evgeniy Polyakov" <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/12] md raid acceleration and performance analysis
On 2/6/07, Leech, Christopher <christopher.leech@...el.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I've been looking over how your patches change the ioatdma driver. I
> like the idea of removing the multiple entry points for virtual address
> vs. page struct arguments, and just using dma_addr_t for the driver
> interfaces.
>
> But, I don't think having both ioatdma and iop-adma implement map_page,
> map_single, unmap_page, and unmap_single entry points is much better.
> Do you see a reason why it wouldn't work to expose the generic device
> for a DMA channel, and replace instances of
>
> dma_device->map_single(dma_chan, src, len, DMA_TO_DEVICE)
>
> with
>
> dma_map_single(dma_device->dev, src, len, DMA_TO_DEVICE)
>
I was initially concerned about a case where dma_map_single was not
equivalent to pci_map_single. Looking now, it appears that case would
be a bug, so I will integrate this change.
> I am a little concerned about having the DMA mapping happen outside of
> the driver, but the unmapping is still in the driver cleanup routine.
> I'm not sure if it's really a problem, or how I'd change it though.
>
> - Chris
Thanks,
Dan
-
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