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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:00:51 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <>
Cc:	"Yinghai Lu" <>, <>,
	"Takashi Iwai" <>, <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent

>>> Ingo Molnar <> 26.10.09 21:19 >>>
>* Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>> >>> Ingo Molnar <> 26.10.09 16:22 >>>
>> >* Jan Beulich <> 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.

I can certainly code it that way, but then we can't use it to replace any
instance of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) used to derive the need for GFP_DMA.
So I'm not sure elimination of which of the instances of DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
is more desirable...


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