[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080509084248.43B5.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 08:46:54 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] call_usermodehelper_setup() should use GFP_KERNEL
> >> Yeah, but making the caller need to know about the internal
> >> implementation details of the callee (ie, whether it needs to allocate
> >> memory or not) leads to pretty warty interfaces. In this case, you
> >> could push the gfp_t up to the call_usermodehelper_setup() level, but
> >> pushing it any higher wouldn't make much sense.
> >
> > No problem :)
> > almost caller doesn't call call_usermodehelper_setup() directly.
> >
> > thus, call_usermodehelper_setup() chage is hided in call_usermodehelper().
>
> Yep, seems reasonable. Are there any UMH_NO_WAIT callers who could be
> using GFP_KERNEL?
UMH_WAIT_EXEC and UMH_WAIT_PROC mean wait on finish of exec or process exit.
I can't imagine situation that exec is waitable *and* allocate isn't waitable.
--
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