On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:10:45 +0200 **UNKNOWN CHARSET** <m.nazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wrote "similar to the existing API', not "reuse the existing API". > > Yes, but I don't really know what you have in mind. CMA is similar to various > APIs in various ways: it's similar to any allocator since it takes > size in bytes, why don't take gfp_t flags? Something like dev_alloc_page is more appropriate name? Or something similar to dmapool API (mm/dmapool.c) might work better. The purpose of dmapool API is creating a pool for consistent memory per device. It's similar to yours, creating a pool for contiguous memory per device(s)? > it's similar to coherent since it takes device, it's similar to bootmem/memblock/etc > since it takes alignment. I don't think that bootmem/memblock matters here since it's not the API for drivers. > > 4k to 40k? I'm not sure. But If I see something like the following, I > > suspect that there is a better way to integrate this into the existing > > infrastructure. > > > > mm/cma-best-fit.c | 407 +++++++++++++++ > > Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were replying to both 2. and 3. > above. > > If we only take allocating algorithm then you're right. Reusing existing one > should not increase the patch size plus it would be probably a better solution. > > No matter, I would rather first work and core CMA without worrying about reusing > kmalloc()/coherent/etc. code especially since providing a plugable allocator API > integration with existing allocating algorithms can be made later on. To put it > short I want first to make it work and then improve it. I'm not sure that's how a new feature is merged. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
