From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:36:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:36:29 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:17826 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:36:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:35:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20030113.223551.92684592.davem@redhat.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BK-2.5] Update the generic DMA API to take GFP_ flags on allocation From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <200301140606.h0E663t16883@hera.kernel.org> References: <200301140606.h0E663t16883@hera.kernel.org> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:26:50 +0000 ChangeSet 1.930.8.1, 2003/01/13 10:26:50-06:00, jejb@raven.il.steeleye.com Update the generic DMA API to take GFP_ flags on allocation dma_alloc_[non]coherent now takes the GFP_ flags as the last argument. The flags passed in may not interfere with the memory zone. What about platforms that can only use GFP_ATOMIC due to implementation side issues? Is that "OK"?