David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On 15 May 2003 10:12:48 -0500, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> said: > > James> On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 10:06, David Mosberger wrote: > >> James and I have been discussing this very point for the last > >> week or so. My preferred solution is to add an explicit dma-mask > >> argument to coherent/non-coherent allocators, but James prefers > >> to do this via a new GFP flag (GFP_DMA32 or some such). > > James> This is still being hashed out. It looks like adding a the > James> _mask variants may still be a viable runner for 2.6. David, Can you provide a little detail on how the _mask vriant is used and passed into the call? Thanks. colin > > > That would be good. > > --davidReceived on Thu May 15 09:06:12 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:14 EST