Re: [PATCH] Improve pci_alloc_consistent wrapper on preemptive kernels

[Jeff Garzik]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:16:28 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 1) Changing from GFP_ATOMIC to <something else> may break code
>
>
> x86-64 did it for a long time and I am not aware of problems with it
> (however I don't know how widespread CONFIG_PREEMPT use on x86-64 is) 
>
>
> > 2) Conversely from #1, I also worry why GFP_ATOMIC would be needed at 
> > all.  I code all my drivers to require that pci_alloc_consistent() be 
> > called from somewhere that is allowed to sleep.
>
>
> Maybe you do, but others don't.

Certainly.  Therefore, changing from GFP_ATOMIC will increase likelihood 
of breakage, no?

	Jeff



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