From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ad7877: keep dma rx buffers in seperate cache lines Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:59:29 +0300 Message-ID: <4BE9A911.1090203@cs.helsinki.fi> References: <1273487642-2169-1-git-send-email-os@emlix.com> <1273488154-2993-1-git-send-email-os@emlix.com> <20100510142225.4bf215ef.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100511060547.GA9644@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20100511062110.GB9644@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20100511063309.GC9644@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20100511165228.GC7396@core.coreip.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100511165228.GC7396@core.coreip.homeip.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Mike Frysinger , Andrew Morton , Oskar Schirmer , Michael Hennerich , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Gl=F6ckner?= , Oliver Schneidewind , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , Matt Mackall List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > The architectures that we are trying to deal with here should be forcing > kmalloc to the cache boundary already though - otherwise they would not > be able to used kmalloced memory for DMA buffers at all. Or am I utterly > lost here? I don't know which architecture you're talking about but it's not true in general and you probably don't want to depend on it even if it happens to work now.