Re: __get_free_pages: can GFP_DMA omit GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC?

[Christoph Lameter]

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.
-
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/