On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 23:26, James Bottomley wrote:
> adam@yggdrasil.com said:
> > This makes me lean infinitesmally more toward a parameter to
> > dma_alloc rather than a separate dma_alloc_not_necessarily_consistent
> > function, because if there ever are other dma_alloc variations that we
> > want to support, it is more likely that there may be overlap between
> > the users of those features and then the number of different function
> > calls would have to grow exponentially (or we might then talk about
> > changing the API again, which is not the end of the world, but is
> > certainly more difficult than not having to do so).
>
> I think I like this.
>
> how about dma_alloc to take two flags
>
> DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY
>
> and
> DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY
> DRIVER_SUPPORTS_NON_CONSISTENT
>
I rather like Dave's suggestion. I wouldn't want to type
DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY a few dozen times for example... sure
you can do that internally but exposing it to drivers... why ?
-
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 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:28 EST