Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

[Daniel Mack <daniel-rDUAYElUppE@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 08:09:11AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. April 2010 17:35:51 schrieb Daniel Mack:
> > > Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> > > Or is that too much overhead?
> > 
> > FWIW, most drivers I've seen in the past hours use a wild mix of
> > kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc() and usb_buffer_alloc(). That should
> > really be unified.
> 
> kmalloc() & friends != usb_buffer_alloc(). They do different things.

I know. I just believe that many developers used usb_buffer_alloc() even
though they don't really need coherent DMA memory. The function's name
is misleading, and copy'n paste does the rest.

> It makes no sense to unify them. If you really need an ordinary
> buffer DMA will surely work on, this needs a third primitive.

I think it will help a lot to rename usb_buffer_alloc() in the first
place and then reconsider where coherent memory is really needed.

Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html