linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/6] jbd: remove dependency on __GFP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100823222100.GE3380@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:21:00 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] jbd: remove dependency on __GFP_NOFAIL

On Mon 23-08-10 15:11:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:03:47 +0200
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
> > So do
> > you think that we should keep __GFP_NOFAIL as long as all callers are not
> > able to handle allocation failures in more reasonable way?
> 
> The concept should be encapsulated in _some_ centralised fashion.
> 
> Helper functions would work as well as __GFP_NOFAIL, and will move any
> runtime cost away from the good code and push it onto the bad code.
  Makes sense. Removed the patch.

  David, could you provide a function for non-failing allocation and then
use this from JBD and whatever else code is also affected? That looks like
a cleaner solution as Andrew points out...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/