| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20140322221344.62e8addc4facbe799b186496@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 22:13:44 +0100 From: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: tytso@....edu, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:55:24 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> 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? > > Obviously I was asleep when I merged that checkpatch change. Exactly where confusion came from, thanks ! Fabian -- 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