On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:24:25PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > I'll be happy to implement it that way. I agree it's a good compromise. > > @Christoph, do you still want the patch where I create 'zone_dma_bits'? With a > hardcoded ZONE_DMA it's not absolutely necessary. Though I remember you said it > was a first step towards being able to initialize dma-direct's min_mask in > meminit. I do like the variable better than the current #define. I wonder if really want a mask or a max_zone_dma_address like variable. So for this series feel free to drop the patch. I'll see if I'll pick it up later or if we can find some way to automatically propagate that information from the zone initialization.
