On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 11:55 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > I'll defer to Mark on this one. However, please remember that you
> > can't just blindly remove GFP_DMA ... there are some cards which
> > require it.
> >
> > Aacraid is one example ... it has a set of cards that can only DMA
> > to 31 bits. For them, the GFP_DMA is necessary: The allocation in
> > question is a scatterlist, which must be within the device DMA mask.
>
> a question i asked a while back, and still haven't seen an answer for
> -- given this in include/linux/gfp.h:
>
> #define GFP_DMA __GFP_DMA
>
> is there a qualitative difference between these two macros? is there
> *supposed* to be? if there isn't, one would think that just one
> variation would be sufficient.
__GFP_ are the raw GFP flags ... the GFP_ are combinations of the flags
with predefined meanings. There's no convention that you have to use
one form or the other when making combinations of the allocation flags.
Historically that's lead to things like
GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_DMA (indicating additional DMA zone to the usual
atomic flags)
and
GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_DMA (indicating same thing, but with the defined flags)
You can argue that GFP_DMA has a pretty bogus GFP meaning and should
never appear on its own, which, to my mind makes the former usage
preferable. However, GFP_DMA has been in linux since pretty much the
dawn of ISA drivers, so I think it's conventionally well understood.
James
James
-
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]
