Re: [PATCH 34/49] gma500: the GEM and GTT code is deviceindependant

[Alan Cox]

> It feels to me like GEM is pulling shmem in an ever more alien direction:
> these device constraints are so foreign to the nature of tmpfs; and
> beyond my expertise, so that I'd be ever more likely to make the wrong
> decisions (mixing swap and uncached pages? hmmm).

For the most part we fixed that. You can now have a GEM object that is
backed by a private memory object rather than having to be tmpfs.
GMA500 uses it to attach 'stolen' memory to GEM handles, and at least
one other pending submission uses it with a private CMA style allocator.

The gma500 report seems an odd one - no GMA500 box has >4GB memory so how
did the test code get a page that was unsuitable - is the test buggy ?

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