Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752832AbZJZPXE (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752610AbZJZPXD (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:03 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:41615 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752744AbZJZPXD (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:22:46 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: Yinghai Lu , tglx@linutronix.de, Takashi Iwai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust GFP mask handling for coherent allocations Message-ID: <20091026152246.GB3749@elte.hu> References: <4AE06644020000780001B4AD@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20091023114825.GH5886@elte.hu> <4AE5CA8C020000780001BD09@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE5CA8C020000780001BD09@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1273 Lines: 31 * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Ingo Molnar 23.10.09 13:48 >>> > >makes sense (although there were a few odd ends in various ISA sound > >driver details so this should go on the .33 not .32), but please > >introduce a cleaner construct, like a new DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK() or so. > > Hmm, I could see DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK only replace DMA_BIT_MASK(24) (but > specifically not being conditional upon CONFIG_ISA) without becoming > confusing. Consequently this would eliminate the conditional in the .c > file. [...] > > Or did you have something else in mind that I just don't realize? DMA_ISA_BIT_MASK was what i had in mind. > And any attempt to eliminate the conditional another way would just > introduce a very similar conditional elsewhere; with this having a > single user (and foreseeably not ever a second one) I would think this > would just make the code less readable. There's 3 other current uses of DMA_BIT_MASK(24) in arch/x86 - couldnt those use ISA_DMA_BIT_MASK too? Ingo -- 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/