In general, the patches look reasonable to me.  Just an observation:

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:52 -0800, akepner@sgi.com wrote:
quoted text
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-attrs.h b/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> index e69de29..31af292 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-attrs.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
> +#ifndef _DMA_ATTR_H
> +#define _DMA_ATTR_H
> +#ifdef ARCH_USES_DMA_ATTRS
> +
> +enum dma_attr {
> +       DMA_ATTR_BARRIER,
> +       DMA_ATTR_FOO,
> +       DMA_ATTR_GOO,
> +       DMA_ATTR_MAX,
> +};
> +


The attribute names (DMA_ATTR_...) are going to have to live somewhere
outside of the #ifdef ARCH_USES_DMA_ATTRS otherwise we'll get compile
failures of drivers using attributes on architectures that don't support
them.

Secondly, DMA_ATTR_BARRIER doesn't quite sound right.  What you're
actually doing is trying to prescribe strict ordering, so shouldn't this
be something like DMA_ATTR_STRICT_ORDERING (and perhaps with a
corresponding DMA_ATTR_RELAXED_ORDERING for the PCIe case).  also,
strike the DMA_ATTR_FOO and DMA_ATTR_GOO since they have no plausible
meaning.

James


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/