From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] [I/OAT] DMA memcpy subsystem Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:09:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20060525180952.GD9867@pb15.lixom.net> References: <20060524001653.19403.31396.stgit@gitlost.site> <20060524002012.19403.50151.stgit@gitlost.site> <20060525175940.GB9867@pb15.lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from lixom.net ([66.141.50.11]:58336 "EHLO mail.lixom.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030306AbWEYSLA (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 May 2006 14:11:00 -0400 To: Chris Leech Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060525175940.GB9867@pb15.lixom.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:59:40AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > Is there a specific reason for why you chose to export 3 different > memcpu calls? They're all just wrapped to the same internals. > > It would seem to make sense to have the client do their own > page_address(page) + offset calculations and just export one function? Nevermind. I'm too used to 64-bit environments where all memory is always addressable to the kernel. There's obvious reasons to do it on 32-bit platforms to avoid the extra kernel mapping. -Olof