[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179907539.17849.16.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:05:39 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 - s390 vs. md
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 17:25 -0700, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> The approach I have taken is to add the missing definitions to
> include/asm-s390/dma-mapping.h [ a non-outlook-mangled version of the
> patch is pushed out in my rebased git tree ]. I was not able to fully
> compile-test this change as the three s390-cross-toolchains I tried
> each
We are trying to get rid of dma-mapping.h, see the last change to the
file with commit 411f0f3edc141a582190d3605cadd1d993abb6df. I don't think
we should reintroduce dma related definition but split the async_tx in a
way that allows to compile it on an architecture with CONFIG_NO_DMA=y
(yes I know that is harder that to just add the dma stubs).
You've said that there is a software implementation if there is no dma
engine present. This software implementation should be independent of
dma-mapping.h. Without having looked at the code, isn't it possible to
isolate that software implementation into its own C file? That would be
the only one that gets compiled for s390.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
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