On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 03:14:34AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2005 23:48, John W. Linville wrote:
> > 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.
Thanks. That is more helpful than the previous message.
I was leery of disturbing the swiotlb_* API needlessly, especially
since that involves ia64 as well. But if you think that would be
better, then I'll work in that direction.
Patches to follow...
John
P.S. BTW, "dumb" is a term that is both subjective and perjorative.
IMHO, it is "dumb" to use the word "dumb" in public discourse...
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
-
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]
| |
 |