From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751443AbVH3BOr (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:14:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751442AbVH3BOr (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:14:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:23770 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751443AbVH3BOr (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:14:47 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [patch 2.6.13] x86_64: implement dma_sync_single_range_for_{cpu,device} Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:14:34 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050829200916.GI3716@tuxdriver.com> <200508292254.53476.ak@suse.de> <20050829214828.GA6314@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20050829214828.GA6314@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508300314.35177.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 29 August 2005 23:48, John W. Linville wrote: > Perhaps...but I think that sounds more like a discussion of _how_ to > implement the API, rather than _whether_ it should be implemented. > Using some new variant of the swiotlb_* API might be appropriate > for the x86_64 implementation. But, since this is a portable API, > I don't think calling the (apparently Intel-specific) swiotlb_* > functions would be an appropriate replacement. What I meant is that instead of the dumb implementation you did it would be better to implement it in swiotlb_* too and copy only the requested byte range there and then call these new functions from the x86-64 wrapper. -Andi