Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756483AbZJZUT1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:19:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754216AbZJZUT0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:19:26 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:52168 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754127AbZJZUT0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:19:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:19:17 +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: <20091026201917.GE24682@elte.hu> References: <4AE06644020000780001B4AD@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20091023114825.GH5886@elte.hu> <4AE5CA8C020000780001BD09@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20091026152246.GB3749@elte.hu> <4AE5D238020000780001BD46@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE5D238020000780001BD46@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1183 Lines: 29 * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Ingo Molnar 26.10.09 16:22 >>> > >* Jan Beulich wrote: > >> 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? > > Oh, so you didn't mean me to eliminate the conditional in pci-dma.c, > but just to replace the DMA_BIT_MASK(24) here an elsewhere. Sure, I'm > fine with adding this to the patch. Well, can ISA_BIT_MASK fall back to DMA_BIT_MASK(32) on !CONFIG_ISA? If we have ISA support disabled we might as well pretend the whole world is PCI, right? That way we'd get rid of that #ifdef in the .c code 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/