On Monday 29 August 2005 23:48, John W. Linville wrote: > Perhaps...but I think that sounds more like a discussion of _how_ to > implement the API, rather than _whether_ it should be implemented. > Using some new variant of the swiotlb_* API might be appropriate > for the x86_64 implementation. But, since this is a portable API, > I don't think calling the (apparently Intel-specific) swiotlb_* > functions would be an appropriate replacement.
What I meant is that instead of the dumb implementation you did it would be better to implement it in swiotlb_* too and copy only the requested byte range there and then call these new functions from the x86-64 wrapper. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
