On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> There seem to be a lot of proposed solutions floating about and I fear that
> different people will try to fix this in different ways. Do we all agree
> that this patch is the correct solution to this problem, or is something
> more needed?
I think this will fix it.
The naming is horrible, though, and that whole "goal" parameter is
senseless and ugly.
It should just be a flag on whether we want DMA'able memory or not. That's
what it _is_, it's just strangely implemented, making the code less
readable.
Since the patch changes all the users of that third parameter _anyway_, it
should probably be fixed to just make the parameter sane instead.
Linus
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
