From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from penguin.netx4.com (embeddededge.com [209.113.146.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009E32BD46 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:13:25 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4174D1F4.2050506@eircom.net> References: <1098072098.751.32.camel@nighteyes.localdomain> <41738D27.4060007@eircom.net> <4174D1F4.2050506@eircom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5925F5E8-21D9-11D9-A47E-003065F9B7DC@embeddededge.com> From: Dan Malek Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:15:37 -0400 To: Conor McLoughlin Cc: linuxppc-embedded Subject: Re: Does kmalloc on MPC82xx work correctly with GFP_DMA? List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Oct 19, 2004, at 4:36 AM, Conor McLoughlin wrote: > If I look at where it is allocating the memory with kmalloc, it is > in this area. Oooops, sorry you are correct, I had vmalloc() on the brain due to some debugging I was doing. > Just because it works doesn't mean that there might not be a bug > lurking there. It works because the 82xx is cache coherent. The MMU mapping is irrelevant. There is no bug here. Just because people don't understand how something works doesn't mean there is a bug present. On processors like the 8xx or 4xx that are not cache coherent, this would be a bug unless cache management functions are also called and the buffers are properly aligned to cache boundaries. Thanks. -- Dan