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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:28:29 +0000 From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be > defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK, > which is conditional to KMEMCHECK. > > This simple patch makes it unconditional. __GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined? If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute it where necessary. -- 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