[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080919192100G.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:21:09 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: joro@...tes.org
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, joerg.roedel@....com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/23] AMD IOMMU: implement lazy IO/TLB flushing
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:29:46 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > index c2e00ee..569527e 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > @@ -888,6 +888,10 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file
> > > nomerge
> > > forcesac
> > > soft
> > > + fullflush
> > > + Flush IO/TLB at every deallocation
> > > + nofullflush
> > > + Flush IO/TLB only when addresses are reused (default)
> >
> > I'm not sure about making 'nofullflush' a generic option. Enabling
> > nofullflush option doesn't change anything. So what's the point of the
> > option?
>
> Backwards compatability with the GART code. These two options are
> basically just moved from the GART code to pci-dma.c. But otherwise its
> pointless, I can remove it if everybody else agrees.
The compatibility with the GART code doesn't mean that we need to have
this pointless option as a common option. You can make 'fullflush' a
common option and the meaningless 'nofullflush' can live in GART.
--
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