On Monday 29 August 2005 23:48, John W. Linville wrote:
> Perhaps...but I think that sounds more like a discussion of _how_ to
> implement the API, rather than _whether_ it should be implemented.
> Using some new variant of the swiotlb_* API might be appropriate
> for the x86_64 implementation. But, since this is a portable API,
> I don't think calling the (apparently Intel-specific) swiotlb_*
> functions would be an appropriate replacement.
What I meant is that instead of the dumb implementation you did
it would be better to implement it in swiotlb_* too and copy
only the requested byte range there and then call these new
functions from the x86-64 wrapper.
-Andi
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |