| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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... Rik -- 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: We have a mail loop!, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: We have a mail loop!, Federico Sevilla III |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Mikulas Patocka |
| Next by Thread: | Re: %u-order allocation failed, Benjamin Herrenschmidt |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |