> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:45:47 +0200 > From: Stefan Sperling <s...@stsp.name> > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > huh? Why an mbuf? Is dma_alloc not a better choice? > > The mbuf pointer already exists to keep track of packets on the > otheor Tx queues. I guess that's why iwn (where this came from) > does it this way. > > I don't mind changing to dma_alloc. I just wanted to fix this in > a non-intrusive way (in terms of lines of diff) and move on...
Using dma_alloc() here would be wrong. Drivers should use bus_dmamem_alloc().
