On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Mark Einon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:32:27PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
>>
>> By re-examine the code I found the calculation is not correct. The
>> real impact is too big to apply this patch, so this patch and
>> following patches should be dropped.
>
> This
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:32:27PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
>
> By re-examine the code I found the calculation is not correct. The
> real impact is too big to apply this patch, so this patch and
> following patches should be dropped.
This will mess up the patch numbering for your set (e.g. only 7
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:01 PM, ZHAO Gang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Mark Einon wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:18PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
>>> The original code allocate rx dma memory in several dma_alloc_coherent
>>> calls,
>>> which causes some problems:
>>> 1. since dm
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Mark Einon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:18PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
>> The original code allocate rx dma memory in several dma_alloc_coherent calls,
>> which causes some problems:
>> 1. since dma_alloc_coherent allocate at least one page memory, it wastes
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:24:18PM +0800, ZHAO Gang wrote:
> The original code allocate rx dma memory in several dma_alloc_coherent calls,
> which causes some problems:
> 1. since dma_alloc_coherent allocate at least one page memory, it wastes some
>memory when allocation size is smaller than o
The original code allocate rx dma memory in several dma_alloc_coherent calls,
which causes some problems:
1. since dma_alloc_coherent allocate at least one page memory, it wastes some
memory when allocation size is smaller than one page.
2. it causes et131x_rx_dma_memory_free as complex as et131
