On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I am not sure what you mean by that. Ia64 ZONE_DMA == x86_84 ZONE_DMA32? > > Hmm, when I wrote GFP_DMA32 it was a #define GFP_DMA32 GFP_DMA > on ia64 so that drivers not need to ifdef. Someone nasty > seems to have removed that too. I guess it would be best > to readd.
What would be the point? > But then it wouldn't make sense to have GFP_DMA on ia64 and GFP_DMA32 > on x86. Since driver writers are more likely to test on x86 > I would recommend ia64 having compatible semantics. It'll > save everybody trouble long term. This means it wouldn't > help on IA64 machines that don't have a DMA zone -- they > would still need to validate drivers especially -- but at least > the others. There are no compatible semantics. ZONE_DMA may mean something different for each arch depending on its need. An arch may not have a need for a 4GB boundary (such as s390). > Also from my driver review driver authors often seem to have > trouble understanding what GFP_DMA really does. With GFP_DMA32 it > is clearer that it applies to a address range and is not > some synonym for pci_map_* GFP_DMA32 is clear because there are no other arches to muddy up the waters. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
