Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-26 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:17:41 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mark Kettenis > > > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:58:36 +0200 > > From: Reyk Floeter > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:43:20PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 25

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-26 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:58:36 +0200 > From: Reyk Floeter > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:43:20PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Imre Vadasz wrote: > > > > On 22:27 Thu 25 Jun , Reyk Flo

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-26 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:43:20PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Imre Vadasz wrote: > > > On 22:27 Thu 25 Jun , Reyk Floeter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Ketten

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Mike Larkin
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Imre Vadasz wrote: > > On 22:27 Thu 25 Jun , Reyk Floeter wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Imre Vadasz wrote: > On 22:27 Thu 25 Jun , Reyk Floeter wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if you have the > > > bus_dmatag_t available. > > > > > > This re-uses

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Imre Vadasz
On 22:27 Thu 25 Jun , Reyk Floeter wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if you have the > > bus_dmatag_t available. > > > > This re-uses tulip_busdma_allocmem(), which simplifies the code for > > allocating the

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Chris Cappuccio
Why do we still prefer de over dc for 211140 ? Reyk Floeter [r...@openbsd.org] wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if you have the > > bus_dmatag_t available. > > > > This re-uses tulip_busdma_allocmem(), whi

Re: Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:21:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if you have the > bus_dmatag_t available. > > This re-uses tulip_busdma_allocmem(), which simplifies the code for > allocating the dmamap and such. > > Unfortunately I can't test this

Better de(4) fix

2015-06-25 Thread Mark Kettenis
There really is no excuse for using dma_alloc(9) if you have the bus_dmatag_t available. This re-uses tulip_busdma_allocmem(), which simplifies the code for allocating the dmamap and such. Unfortunately I can't test this myself right now. Index: if_de.c =