From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gareth Hughes To: Dan Malek Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:45:59 +1100 Message-ID: <3A68DFC7.20F2A56D@valinux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: michdaen@iiic.ethz.ch, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: PPC Lockup (ati-pcigart-branch) References: <3A67B401.8282A00F@relog.ch> <3A67BAC3.94EFEA3A@mvista.com> <3A67E467.74544C4C@valinux.com> <3A687848.B7BE3116@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Dan Malek wrote: > > Hmmm....vmalloc() definitely works fine, we use it all of the > time in the kernel. The only way it would hang is if you call > it too soon, or if the number of pages was too large. Yes. > > .....and we really should be using > > vmalloc_32(...) instead (which will result in exactly the same code, but > > it is cleaner). > > It's no longer the same. Linux has the "highmem" configuration now, > and vmalloc() allows that to be used, while vmalloc32() does not. If you look, we've just included the vmalloc_32() code inline, using __vmalloc(). We're not using the regular highmem vmalloc(). -- Gareth ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/