On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > 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:
>
> Sure that seems to be equivalent to GFP_ATOMIC with no access to
> emergency pool memory.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure.
all right, then some of those __get_free_pages() calls would translate
to calls of the form __get_dma_pages(0, ...) -- is that what you're
saying? or would it be equivalent and preferable to put GFP_ATOMIC in
there just so it looks not so weird?
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]
