From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" To: "Tom Rini" , "Todd Poynor" , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: consistent_free re-revisited Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:23:15 +0200 Message-Id: <20020912072315.5346@192.168.4.1> In-Reply-To: <20020912142945.GC13840@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020912142945.GC13840@opus.bloom.county> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: >> That's the least of our worries - the current consistent_alloc() is >> badly broken. It breaks the DMA-mapping.txt rules, because it can't >> safely be called from interrupt context. I think we need generic >> changes (gfp masks to various functions) to fix this sanely. > >IIRC, to fix the interrupt context bit, we need something like the >following, which was Paul's idea, and he said he would talk to Dave M. >about it. Did anything ever happen there? I tend to hate anything that relies on in_interrupt() as they are other contexts that will have in_interrupt() cleared but still have the same limitations. Typically, anything on the VM path must do either GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOIO allocations, wether it's running at interrupt time or not. Ben. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/