On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:22:28 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, I don't think that they are useful or a nice feature. They would > > become pointless when you finish your dma allocation rework. But I > > don't think that we can remove the existing API exported to userspace. > > Ok I'll restore the defines. But readding the ioctls would > be messy. Do you really think that is needed? As I wrote in the previous mail, I don't think that it's useful. But it's not the point. My point is that we can't remove the existing sg ioctl interface like we can't remove the system calls. Do I misunderstand the rules about the userspace API? > I would rather prefer to fix the driver to always GFP_DMA, but I am > not aware of any driver who needs it. Are you? Well, theoretically, there migth be an user who want these ioctl with all the drivers that are not capable of 64bit DMA since sg allocates the reserved buffer with GFP_KERNEL. These driver might use the block-layer bounce buffer. Users might want to use SG_SET_FORCE_LOW_DMA to avoid the bounce buffer latency. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
