[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610091233.GJ24424@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:12:33 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, rientjes@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mel@....ul.ie,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, riel@...hat.com, pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make GFP_DMA allocations w/o ZONE_DMA emit a warning
instead of failing
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:11:42PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> On 6/10/11, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:38:06 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro
> > <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm: fail GFP_DMA allocations when ZONE_DMA is not
> >> configured"
> >
> > Confused. We reverted this over a week ago.
>
> Should one submit a patch adding a warning to GFP_DMA allocations
> w/o ZONE_DMA, or the idea of the original patch is wrong?
Linus was far from impressed by the original commit, saying:
| Using GFP_DMA is reasonable in a driver - on platforms where that
| matters, it should allocate from the DMA zone, on platforms where it
| doesn't matter it should be a no-op.
So no, not even a warning.
What is a useful exercise though is to remove GFP_DMA from those
allocations which should never have had GFP_DMA added - such as those
used for data structures which have nothing to do with DMA at all.
Also dma_alloc_coherent() should not be given GFP_DMA in any case.
--
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