Re: %u-order allocation failed

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Sat Oct 06 2001 - 20:23:56 EST

Next message: Bob McElrath: "Linux 2.4.11-pre4, extremely long umount times"
Previous message: george anzinger: "Re: Context switch times"
In reply to: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: %u-order allocation failed"
Next in thread: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Re: %u-order allocation failed"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> You are right. Code that allocates more than page and expects it to be
> physicaly contignuous is broken by design. Even rewrite the driver or
> allocate memory on boot. It will be very hard to audit all drivers for it.

Better buy us all new hardware, then ;)

Some devices really do want physically contiguous buffers
for DMA...

Rik

-- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed)

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Bob McElrath: "Linux 2.4.11-pre4, extremely long umount times"
Previous message: george anzinger: "Re: Context switch times"
In reply to: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: %u-order allocation failed"
Next in thread: Benjamin Herrenschmidt: "Re: %u-order allocation failed"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:43 EST