[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210152102220.5400@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes 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.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
> > CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
> > CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>
> I think it was done this way to show that if CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n then the
> bit could be reused for something else but I can't think of any reason why
> that would be useful; what would need to add a gfp bit that would also
> happen to depend on CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n? Nothing comes to mind to save a
> bit.
>
> There are other cases of this as well, like __GFP_OTHER_NODE which is only
> useful for thp and it's defined unconditionally. So this seems fine to
> me.
>
Still missing from linux-next as of this morning, I think this patch
should be merged.
--
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