From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Schirmer Subject: Re: [PATCH][1/4] b44: Ignore carrier lost errors Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:04:14 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <4132D16E.6010003@tuxbox.org> References: <200408292218.00756.jolt@tuxbox.org> <200408292233.03879.jolt@tuxbox.org> <41324158.4020709@pobox.com> <200408292304.25447.jolt@tuxbox.org> <20040829164528.220424e5.davem@davemloft.net> <20040829234928.GA10060@havoc.gtf.org> <20040830061020.GA21270@ee.oulu.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, "David S. Miller" Return-path: To: Pekka Pietikainen In-Reply-To: <20040830061020.GA21270@ee.oulu.fi> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi, while i do agree that this patch is needed and should do what it is supposed to do i'm still wondering what the idea behind pci_map_single() returning inaccessible DMA addresses is. The pci layer knows that the device can only handle addresses up to 1GB. For what reasons should it return addresses above that limit? Reading the DMA-mappings.txt didn't reveal an answer so maybe someone can shed some light onto this topic? Thanks, Florian Pekka Pietikainen wrote: >On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:49:28PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >>>BTW, can someone fixup something for me? Update MODULE_AUTHOR() >>>please :-) 3/4 of this driver have been rewritten since I last >>>touched it, heh. >>> >>> >>hehe. I'll take care of it tonight when I queue Florian's stuff >>to netdev-2.6 (and thus -mm, and thus eventually mainline). >> >> >And here's a resend of the bounce buffer patch, which should still >apply on top of Florians (or without) just fine. > >