[Top] [All Lists]

Re: %u-order allocation failed

To: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 22:23:56 -0300 (BRST)
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011007003227.18004B-100000@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> You are right. Code that allocates more than page and expects it to be
> physicaly contignuous is broken by design. Even rewrite the driver or
> allocate memory on boot. It will be very hard to audit all drivers for it.

Better buy us all new hardware, then ;)

Some devices really do want physically contiguous buffers
for DMA...

DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  http://thefreeworld.net/  (volunteers needed)

http://www.surriel.com/         http://distro.conectiva.com/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>