> I think that the term "pool" is more descriptively used by
> mempool and more misleadningly used by the pci_pool code, as there is
> no guaranteed pool being reserved in the pci_pool code. Alas, I don't
> have a good alternative term to suggest at the moment.
FWIW pci_pool predates mempool by quite a bit (2.4.early vs 2.5.later),
and I don't think I've noticed any correlation between allocation using
the "pool" word and reserving memory ... so I thought it was "mempool"
that clashed. No big deal IMO, "all the good words are taken".
I seem to recall it was a portability issue that made pci_pool never
release pages once it allocates them ... some platform couldn't cope
with pci_free_consistent() being called in_interrupt(). In practice
that seems to have been a good enough reservation scheme so far.
- Dave
-
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/