[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140322170322.GA23583@thunk.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:03:22 -0400
From: tytso@....edu
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:00:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The whole point of __GFP_NOFAIL is to centralise this
> wait-for-memory-for-ever operation. So it is implemented in a common
> (core) place and so that we can easily locate these problematic
> callers.
>
> is exactly wrong. Yes, we'd like __GFP_NOFAIL to go away, but it
> cannot go away until buggy callsites such as this one are *fixed*.
> Removing the __GFP_NOFAIL usage simply hides the buggy code from casual
> searchers.
The change to jbd2 was made in July 2010, back when the "we must
exterminate GFP_NOFAIL at all costs" brigade was in high gear, and the
folks claiming that GFP_FAIL *would* go away, come hell or high water,
was a bit more emphatic.
I'll note that since 2011, there has been precious little movement on
removing the final few callers of GFP_NOFAIL, and we still have a bit
under two dozen of them, including a new one in fs/buffer.c that was
added in 2013.
In any case, __GFP_NOFAIL is in the code comments, so a casual
searcher would find it pretty quickly with a "git grep".
- Ted
--
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