| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 04:41:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: __get_free_pages: can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC? a two-parter: 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: drivers/s390/net/claw.c: (void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA, drivers/s390/net/claw.c: p_buff=(void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA, where you can see that the only type flag is __GFP_DMA. is that meaningful? 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. 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@...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