[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091026134434.035cab90@jbarnes-g45>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:44:34 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:19:17 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 26.10.09 16:22 >>>
> > >* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> > >> 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?
> >
> > Oh, so you didn't mean me to eliminate the conditional in
> > pci-dma.c, but just to replace the DMA_BIT_MASK(24) here an
> > elsewhere. Sure, I'm fine with adding this to the patch.
>
> Well, can ISA_BIT_MASK fall back to DMA_BIT_MASK(32) on !CONFIG_ISA?
> If we have ISA support disabled we might as well pretend the whole
> world is PCI, right?
>
> That way we'd get rid of that #ifdef in the .c code too.
Sounds good to me, feel free to add my acked-by and push it via the
-tip tree.
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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