[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706030435130.14627@localhost.localdomain>
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