Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:12:40 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, David Christensen <davidch@broadcom.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting/Forcing Greater than 4KB Buffer Allocations Message-ID: <20070722001240.GA1221@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <469EEF02.7000804@samsco.org> References: <09BFF2FA5EAB4A45B6655E151BBDD9030483F161@NT-IRVA-0750.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> <20070718021839.GA37935@cdnetworks.co.kr> <09BFF2FA5EAB4A45B6655E151BBDD9030483F437@NT-IRVA-0750.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> <20070719002218.GA42405@cdnetworks.co.kr> <09BFF2FA5EAB4A45B6655E151BBDD9030483F5D2@NT-IRVA-0750.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> <469EEF02.7000804@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote this message on Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 00:56 -0400:
> 1Gb and 10Gb adapters. The question I have is whether this new back-end
> should be accessible directly through yet another bus_dmamap_load_foo
> variant that the drivers need to know specifically about, or indirectly
> and automatically via the existing bus_dmamap_load_foo variants. The
> tradeoff is further API pollution vs the opportunity for even more
> efficiency through no indirect function calls and no cache misses from
> accessing the busdma tag. I don't like API pollution since it makes it
> harder to maintain code, but the opportunity for the best performance
> possible is also appealing.
My vote would be to keep the existing api, and add a flag to the tag
to select which backend to use...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070722001240.GA1221>