[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100407161603.GL30801@buzzloop.caiaq.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:16:03 +0200
From: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pedro Ribeiro <pedrib@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 11:55:19AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> > Or is that too much overhead?
>
> I don't know what the overhead is. But usb_buffer_alloc() requires the
> caller to keep track of the buffer's DMA address, so it's not a simple
> plug-in replacement. In addition, the consistent memory that
> usb_buffer_alloc() provides is a scarce resource on some platforms.
>
> Writing new functions is the way to go.
Ok, I'll write some dummies for usb_malloc() and usb_zalloc() which
will just call kmalloc() with GFP_DMA32 for now. And while at it,
usb_alloc_buffer() will be renamed to usb_alloc_consistent(). Then I'll
try to clean up all existing drivers to use this new interface and
follow the changes.
In a next step, we should fine-tune when GFP_DMA32 is really needed.
And I'll leave all occurances of usb_alloc_consistent() as they are now.
Does that sound ok?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
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