From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:56:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:56:39 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:40074 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:56:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010816.045642.116348743.davem@redhat.com> To: axboe@suse.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de Subject: Re: [patch] zero-bounce highmem I/O From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20010816135150.X4352@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010815.070204.39155321.davem@redhat.com> <20010815.072548.48531893.davem@redhat.com> <20010816135150.X4352@suse.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jens Axboe Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:51:50 +0200 [ Hopefully this mail won't be encoded in Chinese-BIG5 :-) sorry about that ] The only difference between your and my tree now is the PCI_MAX_DMA32 flag. Would you consider this? I already use this flag in the block stuff, I just updated the two references you had. Maybe PCI_MAX_DMA32_MASK is a better name. I didn't put it into my patch becuase there is no way you can use such a value in generic code. What if my scsi controller's pci DMA mask is 0x7fffffff or something like this? You don't know at the generic layer, and you must provide some way for the block device to indicate stuff like this to you. That is why PCI_MAX_DMA32, or whatever you would like to name it, does not make any sense. It can be a shorthand for drivers themselves, but that is it and personally I'd rather they just put the bits there explicitly. I am just finishing up the "death of alt_address" patch right now. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com