[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100216072349.GI5723@laptop>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:23:49 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:03:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > I hope no 3rd vendor (proprietary) driver uses __GFP_NOFAIL, they tend to
> > believe API is trustable and unchanged.
> >
>
> I hope they don't use it with GFP_ATOMIC, either, because it's never been
> respected in that context. We can easily audit the handful of cases in
> the kernel that use __GFP_NOFAIL (it takes five minutes at the max) and
> prove that none use it with GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOFS. We don't need to add
> multitudes of warnings about using a deprecated flag with ludicrous
> combinations (does anyone really expect GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL to work
> gracefully)?
You don't need to add warnings, just don't break existing working
combinations and nobody has anything to complain about.
--
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