Andrew Morton wrote:
>"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>>
>> David Brownell wrote:
>>
>> >struct dma_pool *dma_pool_create(char *, struct device *, size_t)
>> >void dma_pool_destroy (struct dma_pool *pool)
>> >void *dma_pool_alloc(struct dma_pool *, int mem_flags, dma_addr_t *)
>> >void dma_pool_free(struct dma_pool *, void *, dma_addr_t)
>>
>> I would like to be able to have failure-free, deadlock-free
>> blocking memory allocation, such as we have with the non-DMA mempool
>> library so that we can guarantee that drivers that have been
>> successfully initialized will continue to work regardless of memory
>> pressure, and reduce error branches that drivers have to deal with.
>>
>> Such a facility could be layered on top of your interface
>> perhaps by extending the mempool code to pass an extra parameter
>> around. If so, then you should think about arranging your interface
>> so that it could be driven with as little glue as possible by mempool.
>>
>What is that parameter? The size, I assume.
No, dma address. All allocations in a memory pool (in both
the mempool and pci_pool sense) are the same size.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:20 EST