From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3A6DADEF.D525DFCD@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:14:39 -0600 From: Mike Beede MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Hartmann CC: Dan Malek , Roman Zippel , michdaen@iiic.ethz.ch, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Gareth Hughes , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] PPC Lockup (ati-pcigart-branch) References: <3A6C8C6E.3C19F151@mvista.com> <3A6C9852.4090201@valinux.com> <3A6CA6A9.7794B603@mvista.com> <3A6CAAA2.6090607@valinux.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Jeff Hartmann wrote: > > > Dan Malek wrote: > > Ummm...of course it is virtually contiguous. How could it be > > different? You request a size, and it returns a base virtual address. > > If there were holes in it, how would you know? > > Look at vread in vmalloc.c, I think it would handle holes in a > vmalloc'ed area (From a brief reading of the code.) I've seen postings > about this on linux-kernel. I don't see a vwrite implementation, but I > would assume you would have to do something similar for writes. Separate calls to vmalloc can return noncontiguous regions, but the memory from a single call is contiguous. Unless you mean *physically* contiguous, which isn't guaranteed at all. (I don't think you do--just thought I'd be clear). After all, what good would it do to allocate multiple regions and return a pointer to the first? Mike -- Mike Beede Cisco Systems ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/