[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f741d053-4303-5441-21bc-ec86bca1164c@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:06:05 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: <namhyung@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Remove hardcoding of ___GFP_xxx bitmasks
On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> [...]
>> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
>> I'm also fine with it.
>
> I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes
> would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments...
Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set.
>> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will
> hit a lot of opposition...
The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are:
- should a new zone be added after DMA32?
- should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for
hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64
bits?
If you could answer these, then I'll have a better idea of what I need
to do to.
TIA, igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists