From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760415AbXFDSqD (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:46:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758776AbXFDSpy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:45:54 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-4-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:39305 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758350AbXFDSpx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:45:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:45:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: "Robert P. J. Day" cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: __get_free_pages: can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > first, can a call to __get_free_pages to allocate DMA-able memory > omit specifying either of GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC? love's book on > kernel development strongly suggests you need to specify one or the > other, but there are a few instances in the tree like this: Sure that seems to be equivalent to GFP_ATOMIC with no access to emergency pool memory. > and, second, i only noticed this as i was going to submit a short > patch to replace __get_free_pages calls for DMA-able memory with the > existing equivalent macro __get_dma_pages. is that still considered a > worthwhile cleanup? there's not that many examples of it, and it > would just make things consistent. Sure.