Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Josh Boyer
Date: Friday, April 4, 2008 - 6:11 pm

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 16:58 -0700, David Brownell wrote:

Agreed.  One issue is that the summary code allocates a buffer that
equals the eraseblock size of the underlying MTD device.  For larger
NAND chips, that may be up to 256KiB.  I believe this is within the
allowable kmalloc size for most architectures these days, but the
summary code is 3 years old and was likely expecting a smaller limit.
And there is always the question on whether finding that much contiguous
memory will be an issue.

I don't see much harm with the actual patch itself, assuming larger
kmallocs work as I think they should.  It does make me wonder if we have
other cases of vmalloc'd buffers being passed to lower drivers using DMA
though.

josh

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Michael Trimarchi, (Fri Apr 4, 3:23 am)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 4, 12:48 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Russell King - ARM Linux, (Fri Apr 4, 1:09 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, David Brownell, (Fri Apr 4, 4:09 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Josh Boyer, (Fri Apr 4, 4:21 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, David Brownell, (Fri Apr 4, 4:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Josh Boyer, (Fri Apr 4, 6:11 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Kyungmin Park, (Fri Apr 4, 6:29 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 4, 6:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, David Brownell, (Fri Apr 4, 7:17 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, David Brownell, (Fri Apr 4, 7:41 pm)
Re: [PATCH] jffs2 summary allocation, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 4, 8:27 pm)