From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 06:51:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E7837B404 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F281843FEC for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:51:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5UDpSwV001596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id h5UDpMn08416; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:51:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16128.16474.899328.333628@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:51:22 -0400 (EDT) To: Terry Lambert In-Reply-To: <3EFD574B.9419EE71@mindspring.com> References: <3EF3C12F.9060303@btc.adaptec.com> <16124.39930.142492.356163@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3EFC9F2D.6020908@btc.adaptec.com> <16124.43999.333761.397624@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3EFCAC7A.6060305@btc.adaptec.com> <16124.45051.919899.414795@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <16124.46454.595892.860118@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3EFD492A.60C18556@mindspring.com> <20030628080448.GI55920@funkthat.com> <3EFD574B.9419EE71@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: API change for bus_dma X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:51:30 -0000 Terry Lambert writes: > was attempting to address was related to whether or not the memory > in question was physically vs. logically contiguous: > No, its whether or not its cache-coherent. We do everything at a page granularity, and could care less about whether or not the memory is contiguous. Drew