[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6

To: sct@redhat.com
Subject: Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:24:23 -0700
CC: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com, roman@augan.com, sct@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, nico@cam.org, davidm@hpl.hp.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
In-reply-to: <20000816192012.K19260@redhat.com> (sct@redhat.com)
References: <399A4FE4.FA5C397A@augan.com> <200008161713.KAA54085@google.engr.sgi.com> <20000816192012.K19260@redhat.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

   Drivers which do DMA but only to <4GB addresses need bounce
   buffers.

This is only true in an architecture specific sense (ie. x86 systems
are the one's which have this particular restriction).

Which is one of the reasons I wish the bounce buffer stuff went into
the place it belongs, behind the pci_dma API.  If we move to a
page+offset model for drivers, we could do exactly this and also
handle cases like ix86 PAE.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
  - From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>

References:
- Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
  - From: Roman Zippel <roman@augan.com>
- Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
  - From: Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com>
- Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
  - From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
- Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
  - From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>

Prev by Date: Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
Next by Date: Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
Prev by thread: Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
Next by thread: Re: pte_pagenr/MAP_NR deleted in pre6
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread