[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395514595.3667.10.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 11:56:35 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: tytso@....edu, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL
On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 10:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:32:07 -0400 tytso@....edu wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:26:06PM -0400, tytso@....EDU wrote:
> > > > Well. Converting an existing retry-for-ever caller to GFP_NOFAIL is
> > > > good. Adding new retry-for-ever code is not good.
> >
> > Oh, and BTW --- now that checkpatch.pl now flags an warning whenever
> > GFP_NOFAIL is used
>
> I don't know what the basis for this NOFAIL-is-going-away theory could
> have been. What's the point in taking a centrally implemented piece of
> logic and splattering its implementation out to tens of different
> callsites?
[]
> diff -puN scripts/checkpatch.pl~scripts-checkpatchpl-__gfp_nofail-isnt-going-away scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -4240,12 +4240,6 @@ sub process {
> "$1 uses number as first arg, sizeof is generally wrong\n" . $herecurr);
> }
>
> -# check for GFP_NOWAIT use
> - if ($line =~ /\b__GFP_NOFAIL\b/) {
> - WARN("__GFP_NOFAIL",
> - "Use of __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated, no new users should be added\n" . $herecurr);
> - }
How about just changing this message to something like:
WARN("__GFP_NOFAIL",
"Use of __GFP_NOFAIL may cause the OOM handler to kill a random process\n" . $herecurr);
--
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