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  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]
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:22:46 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Jan Beulich <>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <>,,
	Takashi Iwai <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations

* Jan Beulich <> wrote:

> >>> Ingo Molnar <> 23.10.09 13:48 >>>
> >makes sense (although there were a few odd ends in various ISA sound 
> >driver details so this should go on the .33 not .32), but please 
> >introduce a cleaner construct, like a new DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK() or so.
> Hmm, I could see DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK only replace DMA_BIT_MASK(24) (but 
> specifically not being conditional upon CONFIG_ISA) without becoming 
> confusing. Consequently this would eliminate the conditional in the .c 
> file. [...]
> Or did you have something else in mind that I just don't realize?

DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK was what i had in mind.

> And any attempt to eliminate the conditional another way would just 
> introduce a very similar conditional elsewhere; with this having a 
> single user (and foreseeably not ever a second one) I would think this 
> would just make the code less readable.

There's 3 other current uses of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) in arch/x86 - couldnt 
those use ISA_DMA_BIT_MASK too?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists