linux-kernel - Re: __get_free_pages: can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706041143520.24412@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: __get_free_pages:  can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC?

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   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:

Sure that seems to be equivalent to GFP_ATOMIC with no access to emergency 
pool memory.

>   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.

Sure.
-
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/