[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <563234A0.1010901@nod.at>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:00:48 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@...il.com>
Cc: jdike@...toit.com, user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] um: net: replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC when
spinlock is held
Am 29.10.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Joe Perches:
> On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 14:46 +0530, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
>> replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC while spinlock is held,
>> as code while holding a spinlock should be atomic.
>> GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock,
>> where as GFP_ATOMIC may fail but certainly avoids deadlock
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@...il.com>
>> ---
>> v3: removed the atomic variable, as per Richard comment
>
> Trivia: You could remove the gfp_mask variables too
> and just use GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC directly.
Yep.
And "int gfp_mask" does also not make sense, GFP_* is of type
gfp_t.
Thanks,
//richard
--
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