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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] jbd: remove dependency on __GFP_NOFAIL

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Andrew Morton 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.
> 

There's no runtime cost on the bad code, the calls never loop since the 
page allocator already loops itself.  Regardless, I'll add a helper 
function to include/linux/gfp.h to do this with a WARN_ON_ONCE() inside 
the loop in case any order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER callers are ever 
added (and I really hope nobody merges those).
--
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/