a two-parter:
first, can a call to __get_free_pages to allocate DMA-able memory
omit specifying either of GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC? love's book on
kernel development strongly suggests you need to specify one or the
other, but there are a few instances in the tree like this:
drivers/s390/net/claw.c: (void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA,
drivers/s390/net/claw.c: p_buff=(void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA,
where you can see that the only type flag is __GFP_DMA. is that
meaningful?
and, second, i only noticed this as i was going to submit a short
patch to replace __get_free_pages calls for DMA-able memory with the
existing equivalent macro __get_dma_pages. is that still considered a
worthwhile cleanup? there's not that many examples of it, and it
would just make things consistent.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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]
