[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140326061904.GA4907@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 02:19:04 -0400
From: tytso@....edu
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> The point is not to add new callers and new code should handle NULL
> correctly, not that we should run around changing current users to just do
> infinite retries. Checkpatch should have nothing to do with that.
My problem with this doctrinaire "there should never be any new users"
is that sometiems there *are* worse things than infinite retries. If
the alternative is bringing the entire system down, or livelocking the
entire system, or corrupting user data, __GFP_NOFAIL *is* the more
appropriate option.
If you try to tell those of us outside of the mm layer, "thou shalt
never use __GFP_NOFAIL in new code", and we have some new code where
the alternative is worse, we can either open-code the loop, or have
some mm hackers and/or checkpatch whine at us.
Andrew has declared that he'd prefer that we not open code the retry
loop; if you want to disagree with Andrew, feel free to pursuade him
otherwise. If you want to tell me that I should accept user data
corruption, I'm going to ignore you (and/or checkpatch).
Regards,
- 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