[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100412115300.GM18855@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:53:00 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
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
> Which is exactly what usb_buffer_alloc() does already. So at least for
> x86 you say this is the right thing to do? However, we don't necessarily
> need coherent memory on other platforms, which is why I hessitate to
> enforce that type of memory for all transfer_buffer allocations.
Yes today it's faster at least.
Probably we should have better interfaces for this, but we don't.
>
> > Or just use GFP_KERNEL and pci_map_* later.
>
> The USB core does this already, but at least on Pedro's machine, this
> seems unsufficient. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue yet, even
> with more than 4GB of RAM installed.
Then something must be broken in Pedro's system and likely other drivers
will also not work. I don't think it should be worked around in the USB layer.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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