> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
=