[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185261894.8197.33.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:24:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 00:09 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Then we can either fixup the slab allocators to mask out __GFP_ZERO, or
> > do something like the below.
> >
> > Personally I like the consistency of adding __GFP_ZERO here (removes
> > this odd exception) and just masking it in the sl[aou]b thingies.
>
> There is another exception for __GFP_DMA.
non of the zone specifiers are
> > Anybody else got a preference?
>
> > #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> >
> > -/* if you forget to add the bitmask here kernel will crash, period */
> > +/*
> > + * If you forget to add the bitmask here kernel will crash, period!
> > + *
> > + * GFP_LEVEL_MASK is used to filter out the flags that are to be passed to the
> > + * page allocator.
> > + *
>
> GFP_LEVEL_MASK is also used in mm/vmalloc.c. We need a definition that
> goes beyond slab allocators.
Right, bugger.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists