On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:11:42PM +0400, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > On 6/10/11, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:38:06 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro > > <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm: fail GFP_DMA allocations when ZONE_DMA is not > >> configured" > > > > Confused. We reverted this over a week ago. > > Should one submit a patch adding a warning to GFP_DMA allocations > w/o ZONE_DMA, or the idea of the original patch is wrong? Linus was far from impressed by the original commit, saying: | Using GFP_DMA is reasonable in a driver - on platforms where that | matters, it should allocate from the DMA zone, on platforms where it | doesn't matter it should be a no-op. So no, not even a warning. What is a useful exercise though is to remove GFP_DMA from those allocations which should never have had GFP_DMA added - such as those used for data structures which have nothing to do with DMA at all. Also dma_alloc_coherent() should not be given GFP_DMA in any case. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>