linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the block tree

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:38:53 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the block
 tree

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:51:25AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-mq.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3ef28e83ab15 ("block: generic request_queue reference counting")
> 
> from the block tree and commit:
> 
>   7cc8e61bde7a ("mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd")
>   415a13cc1c3c ("mm, page_alloc: rename __GFP_WAIT to __GFP_RECLAIM")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the code updated in the latter was moved by the former,
> so I applied the following merge fix patch) and can carry the fix as
> necessary (no action is required).
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 02:49:02 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] block: fixes for __GPF_WAIT changes
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  block/blk-core.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 9e32f0868e36..6f2c263f478b 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ int blk_queue_enter(struct request_queue *q, gfp_t gfp)
>  		if (percpu_ref_tryget_live(&q->q_usage_counter))
>  			return 0;
>  
> -		if (!(gfp & __GFP_WAIT))
> +		if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp))
>  			return -EBUSY;
>  
>  		ret = wait_event_interruptible(q->mq_freeze_wq,
> @@ -2038,7 +2038,7 @@ void generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
>  	do {
>  		struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev);
>  
> -		if (likely(blk_queue_enter(q, __GFP_WAIT) == 0)) {
> +		if (likely(blk_queue_enter(q, __GFP_RECLAIM) == 0)) {
>  
>  			q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
>  

Hi Stephen,

___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is more appropriate than __GFP_RECLAIM in the
second hunk.

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/