From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:34:31 -0700 Subject: [RFCv5 0/9] CMA + VCMM integration In-Reply-To: References: <20100906210905.GB5863@kroah.com> Message-ID: <20100907023431.GB11972@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:40:46AM +0200, Micha?? Nazarewicz wrote: > On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:09:05 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 08:33:50AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> This patchset introduces a draft of a redesign of Zach Pfeffer's >>> VCMM. >> >> What is a VCMM? > > Virtual Contiguous Memory Manager. The version posted by Zach can > be found at: . > It is an API for managing IO MMU and IO MMU mappings. > >> What is a CMA? > > Contiguous Memory Manager. The v4 version can be found at > . It is an API for > allocating large, physically contiguous blocks of memory. > > I haven't expected that anyone who haven't already participated in the > discussion about CMA and VCMM will get interested by this patchset > so I was a bit vague in the cover letter. Sorry about that. > >>> Not all of the functionality of the original VCMM has been >>> ported into this patchset. This is mostly meant as RFC. Moreover, >>> the code for VCMM implementation in this RFC has not been tested. > >> If you haven't even tested it, why should we review it? > > Ignore the code then and look just at the documentation, please. > I wanted to post what I have to receive comments about the general > idea and not necessarily the code itself. Code is just a mean to show > how I see the implementation of the idea described in the documentation. > Because of all that, I marked the patchset as a RFC rather than a PATCH. Oops, I looked at the code, sorry :) greg k-h