Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965706AbXEWP4w (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 11:56:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762975AbXEWP4k (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 11:56:40 -0400 Received: from [216.16.235.2] ([216.16.235.2]:57361 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758472AbXEWP4j (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 11:56:39 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 99.246.112.70 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:55:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: James Bottomley cc: Aubrey Li , Christoph Lameter , Bernhard Walle , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [scsi] Remove __GFP_DMA In-Reply-To: <1179933494.3700.16.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Message-ID: References: <20070521151525.GA581@suse.de> <6d6a94c50705221941y63f4db7bj174a2265d9eaa61a@mail.gmail.com> <1179933494.3700.16.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-36.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1268 Lines: 33 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. 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 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/