On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:19:22PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:44:13 -0700
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:25:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > Just looking at
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:44:13 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:25:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
Just looking at the number of devices, it seems that allocating it
dynamical
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:44:13 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:25:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > Just looking at the number of devices, it seems that allocating it
> > > dynamically would b
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:25:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > Just looking at the number of devices, it seems that allocating it
> > dynamically would be the better deal. We allocate the name of every
> > kobject dynamically today
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Just looking at the number of devices, it seems that allocating it
> dynamically would be the better deal. We allocate the name of every
> kobject dynamically today, so I guess it's fine to do that with the
> DMA data too.
But we don't
On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:10 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 10:05 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:10 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 10:05 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 10:05 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrot
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:02 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomle
On 10/2/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > One possibility we could do is to add a
> > >
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 21:22 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > One possibility we could do is to add a
> > >
> > > struct dma_device {
> > > struct device dev;
> > >
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > One possibility we could do is to add a
> >
> > struct dma_device {
> > struct device dev;
> > u64 dma_mask;
> > u64 coherent_dma_mask;
> > unsigne
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 07:36:10PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> One possibility we could do is to add a
>
> struct dma_device {
> struct device dev;
> u64 dma_mask;
> u64 coherent_dma_mask;
> unsigned int max_segment_size;
> /* plus any other DMA parameters */
> };
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 09:05 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:58:01PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > iommu code merges sg segments without considering lld's sg segment
> > restrictions. iommu code can't access to the limitations because they
> > are in request_queue. This patch
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:05:58 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:58:01PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > iommu code merges sg segments without considering lld's sg segment
> > restrictions. iommu code can't access to the limitations because they
> > are in reque
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:58:01PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> iommu code merges sg segments without considering lld's sg segment
> restrictions. iommu code can't access to the limitations because they
> are in request_queue. This patch adds max_segment_size to device
> structure. seg_boundary_
16 matches
Mail list logo
