From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:45:58 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Darin.Johnson@nokia.com Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [RFC] consistent_sync and non L1 cache line aligned buffers Message-ID: <20030715164557.A8616@home.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Darin.Johnson@nokia.com on Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:04:24PM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Darin.Johnson@nokia.com wrote: > > > IMHO, the easiest solution is > > alignment of buffers.....plus it's likely to be a performance > > improvement. > > True, it's the easiest solution for the kernel developer, but > requires more work from driver authors. Which is ok, *if* it's > well documented and everyone knows buffers must be aligned, > and that's the problem. I think some people implicitly understand > these issues, and assume that everyone else thinks the same way. What more do you expect than the "What memory is DMA'able?" section in Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt? It's there to refer the developers to. Some maintainers have bugs in their drivers/subsystems. They just need a patch from the people that depend on the bug fix. I know you are now focusing on some 8xx buffer issue but the original issue was surrounding generic SCSI subsystem bugs. Regards, -- Matt Porter mporter@kernel.crashing.org ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/