Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > No, GFP_DMA should work OK. Except GFP_DMA doesn't have __GFP_VALID set.
> > It's strange that this didn't get noticed earlier.
> >
> > Ben, was there a reason for not giving
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> No, GFP_DMA should work OK. Except GFP_DMA doesn't have __GFP_VALID set.
> It's strange that this didn't get noticed earlier.
>
> Ben, was there a reason for not giving GFP_DMA the treatment?
Not really. Traditionally GFP_DMA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The following patch fixes the compilation (defconfig) of s390:
>
> arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x152c): In function `query_segment_type':
> extmem.c: undefined reference to `__your_kmalloc_flags_are_not_valid'
> arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x19ec): In function
The following patch fixes the compilation (defconfig) of s390:
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x152c): In function `query_segment_type':
extmem.c: undefined reference to `__your_kmalloc_flags_are_not_valid'
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x19ec): In function `segment_load':
: undefined reference to
The following patch fixes the compilation (defconfig) of s390:
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x152c): In function `query_segment_type':
extmem.c: undefined reference to `__your_kmalloc_flags_are_not_valid'
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x19ec): In function `segment_load':
: undefined reference to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following patch fixes the compilation (defconfig) of s390:
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x152c): In function `query_segment_type':
extmem.c: undefined reference to `__your_kmalloc_flags_are_not_valid'
arch/s390/mm/built-in.o(.text+0x19ec): In function
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
No, GFP_DMA should work OK. Except GFP_DMA doesn't have __GFP_VALID set.
It's strange that this didn't get noticed earlier.
Ben, was there a reason for not giving GFP_DMA the treatment?
Not really. Traditionally GFP_DMA was
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
No, GFP_DMA should work OK. Except GFP_DMA doesn't have __GFP_VALID set.
It's strange that this didn't get noticed earlier.
Ben, was there a reason for not giving GFP_DMA the
8 matches
Mail list logo
