Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:32:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:32:54 -0500 Received: from host194.steeleye.com ([66.206.164.34]:17157 "EHLO pogo.mtv1.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:32:53 -0500 Message-Id: <200301021641.h02GfFU02455@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Adam J. Richter" cc: david-b@pacbell.net, akpm@digeo.com, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic device DMA (dma_pool update) In-Reply-To: Message from "Adam J. Richter" of "Wed, 01 Jan 2003 20:13:35 PST." <200301020413.UAA03503@baldur.yggdrasil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 10:41:15 -0600 From: James Bottomley X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1537 Lines: 31 adam@yggdrasil.com said: > Let me clarify or revise my request. By "show me or invent an > example" I mean describe a case where this would be used, as in > specific hardware devices that Linux has trouble supporting right now, > or specific programs that can't be run efficiently under Linux, etc. > What device would need to do this kind of allocation? Why haven't I > seen requests for this from people working on real device drivers? > Where is this going to make the kernel smaller, more reliable, faster, > more maintainable, able to make a computer do something it could do > before under Linux, etc.? I'm not really the right person to be answering this. For any transfer you set up (which encompasses all of the SCSI stuff bar target mode and AENs) you should have all the resources ready and waiting in the interrupt, and so never require an in_interrupt allocation. However, for unsolicited transfer requests---the best example I can think of would be incoming network packets---it does make sense: You allocate with GFP_ATOMIC, if the kernel can fulfil the request, fine; if not, you drop the packet on the floor. Now, whether there's an unsolicited transfer that's going to require coherent memory, that I can't say. It does seem to be possible, though. James - 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/