From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271692AbTHRMo7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:44:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271707AbTHRMo7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:44:59 -0400 Received: from hq.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.10]:38873 "EHLO hq.pm.waw.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271692AbTHRMo6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:44:58 -0400 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zaitcev@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: kills consistent_dma_mask References: <20030817233705.0bea9736.davem@redhat.com> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: 18 Aug 2003 14:44:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20030817233705.0bea9736.davem@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" writes: > ia64 does in fact need consistent_dma_mask. For what? Perhaps a file name? > > It isn't even implemented on most platforms - only x86_64 and ia64 have > > support for it, while on the remaining archs using it according to the > > docs (with non-default value) could mean Oops or something like that. > > The platforms where it isn't implemented simply support > it identically to how they support the normal dma_mask. No. This is only true if you set dma_mask = consistent_dma_mask. If they aren't equal (and don't cover the entire RAM address space) the thing is broken. If they have to be equal - why we need 2 masks in the first place? > Please read the threads in the archives that caused > consistent_dma_mask to be added to the tree in the first > place before you go around removing it. I did that before posting, of course. Which archives do you mean? -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator