a two-parter: first, can a call to __get_free_pages to allocate DMA-able memory omit specifying either of GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC? love's book on kernel development strongly suggests you need to specify one or the other, but there are a few instances in the tree like this:
drivers/s390/net/claw.c: (void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA, drivers/s390/net/claw.c: p_buff=(void *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_DMA, where you can see that the only type flag is __GFP_DMA. is that meaningful? and, second, i only noticed this as i was going to submit a short patch to replace __get_free_pages calls for DMA-able memory with the existing equivalent macro __get_dma_pages. is that still considered a worthwhile cleanup? there's not that many examples of it, and it would just make things consistent. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
