[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070920042521.GU32520@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:25:21 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] JBD: use GFP_NOFS in kmalloc
On Sep 19, 2007 12:22 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> Convert the GFP_KERNEL flag used in JBD/JBD2 to GFP_NOFS, consistent
> with the rest of kmalloc flag used in the JBD/JBD2 layer.
>
> @@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ static journal_t * journal_init_common (
> - journal = kmalloc(sizeof(*journal), GFP_KERNEL);
> + journal = kmalloc(sizeof(*journal), GFP_NOFS);
> @@ -723,7 +723,7 @@ journal_t * journal_init_dev(struct bloc
> - journal->j_wbuf = kmalloc(n * sizeof(struct buffer_head*), GFP_KERNEL);
> + journal->j_wbuf = kmalloc(n * sizeof(struct buffer_head*), GFP_NOFS);
> @@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ journal_t * journal_init_inode (struct i
> - journal->j_wbuf = kmalloc(n * sizeof(struct buffer_head*), GFP_KERNEL);
> + journal->j_wbuf = kmalloc(n * sizeof(struct buffer_head*), GFP_NOFS);
Is there a reason for this change except "it's in a filesystem, so it
should be GFP_NOFS"? We are only doing journal setup during mount so
there shouldn't be any problem using GFP_KERNEL. I don't think it will
inject any defect into the code, but I don't think it is needed either.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
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