From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755148AbZBGGFq@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755148AbZBGGFq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:05:46 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751490AbZBGGFf
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:05:35 -0500
Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35951
	"EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751083AbZBGGFe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:05:34 -0500
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20090206.220531.81492830.davem@davemloft.net>
To: dan.j.williams@intel.com
Cc: anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp, maciej.sosnowski@intel.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net_dma: call dmaengine_get only if NET_DMA enabled
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <498D241F.4080005@intel.com>
References: <20090206.192910.42610645.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20090206.215533.166740686.davem@davemloft.net>
	<498D241F.4080005@intel.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:03:11 -0700

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> > Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:29:10 -0800 (PST)
> > 
> >> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:52:35 -0700
> >>
> >>> Yes, it has been on the todo list for a while, but I eventually want
> >>> the net case to look more like the raid case.  I.e. have one code path
> >>> that picks async versus sync at runtime, with the option to compile
> >>> out async support with header file ifdefs only.
> >> And how does any of that get us any closer to a fix right now
> >> for this problem that doesn't require an ifdef?
> >>
> >> Someone please work on this.
> > I guess that'd end up being me....
> 
> Not necessarily, you did snap me back into reality with that comment.
> 
> > How about something like this?
> 
> Looks good.

Ok, I'll add this to net-2.6 then, thanks.