Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:31:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:31:21 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:36877 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:31:20 -0400 To: Roman Zippel Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Put modules into linear mapping References: <20020927140930.GA12610@averell.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 27 Sep 2002 17:36:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: Roman Zippel's message of "27 Sep 2002 16:49:12 +0200" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1016 Lines: 24 Roman Zippel writes: > Why is i386 only? This is generic code and other archs will benefit from > it as well (or at least it won't hurt). Because some arcitectures have a different module_map() (e.g. x86-64 or sparc64) and because the VMALLOC_START/END trick doesn't work on all. > > + > > +void *alloc_exact(unsigned int size) > > +{ > > + struct page *p, *w; > > + int order = get_order(size); > > + > > + p = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL, order); > > Wouldn't it be better to add a gfp argument? I don't see a need for it. GFP_ATOMIC doesn't make sense for > order 0, and > order 0 is the only case that is interesting for alloc_exact. GFP_DMA is not needed here, and GFP_HIGHUSER neither supports > order 0 properly (because of kmap) -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/