linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:26:06 -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 Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:15:12AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Well.  Converting an existing retry-for-ever caller to GFP_NOFAIL is
> good.  Adding new retry-for-ever code is not good.

Actually, it wasn't converting an existing loop; it was adding a new
GFP_NOFAIL to fix a reclaim livelock (commit 84235de394d9775bf).

I agree that in ideal world, we'd get rid of all of these.  But
sometimes, the cure can be worse than the disesae, and so the whole
"all callers of GFP_NOFAIL are MUST FIX BUGGGY and the maintainers
should be shamed into fixing it" attitude is one that I find a bit odd
myself.

	      	    	    	     	     - 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/