[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610185858.GN24424@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:58:58 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, 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 11:54:16AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Any words of wisdom for users with CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n that actually use
> drivers where they need GFP_DMA? The page allocator should just silently
> return memory from anywhere?
See Linus' reply. I quote again "on platforms where it doesn't matter it
should be a no-op". If _you_ have a problem with that _you_ need to
discuss it with _Linus_, not me. I'm not going to be a middle-man sitting
between two people with different opinions.
--
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