From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261184AbVG1E0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:26:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261191AbVG1E0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:26:19 -0400 Received: from lyle.provo.novell.com ([137.65.81.174]:43325 "EHLO lyle.provo.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261184AbVG1E0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:26:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:26:07 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mj@ucw.cz, openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/xx/pci: remap_pfn_range -> io_remap_pfn_range Message-ID: <20050728042607.GA12799@suse.de> References: <20050725223200.GA1545@mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050725223200.GA1545@mellanox.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 01:32:00AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Greg, Martin, does the following make sense? > If it does, should other architectures be updated as well? > > --- > > Convert i386/pci to use io_remap_pfn_range instead of remap_pfn_range. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > Index: linux-2.6.12.2/arch/i386/pci/i386.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.12.2.orig/arch/i386/pci/i386.c > +++ linux-2.6.12.2/arch/i386/pci/i386.c > @@ -295,9 +295,9 @@ int pci_mmap_page_range(struct pci_dev * > /* Write-combine setting is ignored, it is changed via the mtrr > * interfaces on this platform. > */ > - if (remap_pfn_range(vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_pgoff, > - vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start, > - vma->vm_page_prot)) > + if (io_remap_pfn_range(vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_pgoff, > + vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start, > + vma->vm_page_prot)) Hm, you do realize that io_remap_pfn_range() is the same thing as remap_pfn_range() on i386, right? So, why would this patch change anything? thanks, greg k-h