[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070724161247.ee1a2546.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:12:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
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, 24 Jul 2007 16:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I think I'll duck this for now. Otherwise I have a suspicion that I'll
> > be the first person to run it and I'm too old for such excitement.
>
> I always had the suspicion that you have some magical script
> which will immediately tell you that a patch is not working ;-)
sort of a defensive crouch.
> Works fine on x86_64 (on top of the ctor cleanup patchset) and passes the
> kernel build test but then there may be creatively designed drivers and
> such that pass these flags to the slab allocators which will now BUG.
__GFP_COLD looks OK.
__GFP_COMP I'm not so sure about.
drivers/char/drm/drm_pci.c:drm_pci_alloc() (and other places like infiniband)
pass it into dma_alloc_coherent() which some architectures implement via slab. umm,
arch/arm/mm/consistent.c is one such.
__GFP_MOVABLE looks OK.
-
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