Re: [PATCH] generic device DMA (dma_pool update)

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

Adam J. Richter wrote:

> 	I think that the term "pool" is more descriptively used by
> mempool and more misleadningly used by the pci_pool code, as there is
> no guaranteed pool being reserved in the pci_pool code.  Alas, I don't
> have a good alternative term to suggest at the moment.

FWIW pci_pool predates mempool by quite a bit (2.4.early vs 2.5.later),
and I don't think I've noticed any correlation between allocation using
the "pool" word and reserving memory ... so I thought it was "mempool"
that clashed.  No big deal IMO, "all the good words are taken".

I seem to recall it was a portability issue that made pci_pool never
release pages once it allocates them ... some platform couldn't cope
with pci_free_consistent() being called in_interrupt().  In practice
that seems to have been a good enough reservation scheme so far.

- Dave