2014-10-04 1:39 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 10/03/2014 12:06 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2014-10-03 23:27 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>>> On 10/02/2014 07:08 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Tue,
On 10/03/2014 12:06 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-10-03 23:27 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>> On 10/02/2014 07:08 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> 2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley
On 10/3/2014 12:06 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
2014-10-03 23:27 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
On 10/02/2014 07:08 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/3
2014-10-03 23:27 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 10/02/2014 07:08 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>>> On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixn
On 10/02/2014 07:08 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>> On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
Which is different than if the
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 08:08:33AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> > On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> >>> Which is
2014-10-03 7:03 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Which is different than if the plan is to ship production units for x86;
>>> then
On 10/02/2014 12:41 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Whether the proposed patchset is the correct solution to support it is
>>> a completely different question.
>>
>> This patchset
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:49:54PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Whether the proposed patchset is the correct solution to support it is
> > a completely different question.
>
> This patchset has been in mainline since 3.16 and has already caused
>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Whether the proposed patchset is the correct solution to support it is
> > a completely different question.
>
> This patchset has been in mainline since 3.16 and has already caused
> regressions, so the q
On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Whether the proposed patchset is the correct solution to support it is
> a completely different question.
This patchset has been in mainline since 3.16 and has already caused
regressions, so the question of whether this is the correct solution has
a
On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> I read the UFS Unified Memory Extension v1.0 (JESD220-1) specification and
>> it is not clear to me that using DMA mapping is the right approach to
>> supporting UM, at least on x86.
>>
>> And without a mai
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Peter Hurley wrote:
> I read the UFS Unified Memory Extension v1.0 (JESD220-1) specification and
> it is not clear to me that using DMA mapping is the right approach to
> supporting UM, at least on x86.
>
> And without a mainline user, the merits of this approach are not evide
2014-09-30 23:34 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 09/29/2014 10:32 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2014-09-29 21:09 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>>> On 09/27/2014 08:31 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> This patch set
On 09/29/2014 10:32 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-09-29 21:09 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>> On 09/27/2014 08:31 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> 2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on
2014-09-29 21:09 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 09/27/2014 08:31 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>>> On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on x86.
>
> [...]
>
>>> What this patchset does is re
On 09/27/2014 08:31 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
>> On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on x86.
[...]
>> What this patchset does is restrict all iommu configurations which can
>> map all
2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley :
> On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on x86.
>>
>> Currently the DMA CMA is only supported with pci-nommu dma_map_ops
>> and furthermore it can't be enabled on x86_64. But I would like
On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on x86.
>
> Currently the DMA CMA is only supported with pci-nommu dma_map_ops
> and furthermore it can't be enabled on x86_64. But I would like to
> allocate big contiguous memory with dma_a
19 matches
Mail list logo
