On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:09:05PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
> > subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code
> > to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really s
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 08:56:00AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
> > subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code
> > to manage CMA reserved area even if th
Joonsoo Kim writes:
> Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
> subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code
> to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
> From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kv
On Tue, Jun 03 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
> subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code
> to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
> From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bit
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
>From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side
wants to maintain bitm
