From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:36:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:36:11 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:6407 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:36:11 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:46:31 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Proposal: Eliminate GFP_DMA Message-ID: <20030228064631.G23865@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm thinking about doing something along these lines: --- linux-2.5.63/include/linux/gfp.h 2003-02-24 13:05:13.000000000 -0600 +++ linux-2.5.63-gfpdma/include/linux/gfp.h 2003-02-27 17:24:39.000000000 -0600 @@ -26,11 +26,8 @@ -/* Flag - indicates that the buffer will be suitable for DMA. Ignored on some - platforms, used as appropriate on others */ - -#define GFP_DMA __GFP_DMA - +#define GFP_ATOMIC_DMA (GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_DMA) +#define GFP_KERNEL_DMA (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_DMA) combined with changing some users to use __GFP_DMA if they really do mean the bitmask. Comments? -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk