Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:14:13 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>, Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com>,
       hancockrwd@gmail.com, david-b@pacbell.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.34] ehci-hcd: add option to enable 64-bit DMA
 support
Message-ID: <20100225161413.GA1229@kroah.com>
References: <4B7CAF95.6020306@gmail.com>
 <SNT125-W36AFF0BF953EABAC9A0432C3400@phx.gbl>
 <4B85EE88.5050506@kernel.org>
 <201002250503.09327.oliver@neukum.org>
 <4B8609CE.5000705@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B8609CE.5000705@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 996
Lines: 27

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 02:25:34PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 02/25/2010 01:03 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 04:29:12 schrieb Tejun Heo:
> >> Arghhh.... I hate when intel pulls this type of 'product
> >> differentiation' stunts.  At any rate, I'm doubtful swiotlb'ing for
> >> usb2.0 would be noticeable at all.
> > 
> > That can and should be tested.
> 
> Robert did already.  Given that USB2.0 devices aren't usually used for
> high-perf storage subsystem, the benefit looks marginal to me but
> everyone is entitled to own opinion.

For now, I'd like to not enable this, given the huge risks and no known
benifit.

For USB 3.0, we can reconsider it, as it might start to make a
difference there.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/