Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> I thought of it, but is it OK to modify arch-independent code with such
> a hack?
It's OK in your own code, I probably still have some around that looks
like that :-)
> Maybe this is the reason it never was accepted.
I'll have to search for the messages where this was
Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> Current PPC implementation of consistent_alloc cannot be called from an
> interrupt context.
H.Why did I think this was corrected in the past? I see all of
the consistent_alloc users are doing the same thing. I know we discussed
this, and the solution was actu
Dan,
At 09:05 PM 6/12/2002, you wrote:
H.Why did I think this was corrected in the past? I see all of
>the consistent_alloc users are doing the same thing. I know we discussed
>this, and the solution was actually quite trivial. All we have to do is
>pass a GFP_ATOMIC into the kmalloc()
Hi!
Current PPC implementation of consistent_alloc cannot be called from an
interrupt context.
This function is used by pci_alloc_consistent when
CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE is defined.
Unfortunately it contradicts Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt which clearly
states that pci_alloc_consistent can be
