[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8255f9c95f22035f57ed3167595e8e3@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:13:23 -0700
From: Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pratikp@...eaurora.org, pdaly@...eaurora.org,
sudaraja@...eaurora.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: cma: indefinitely retry allocations in cma_alloc
On 2020-09-25 05:18, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.09.20 07:16, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
>> - GFP_KERNEL | (no_warn ? __GFP_NOWARN : 0));
>> + GFP_KERNEL | (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN));
>
> Right, we definetly don't want to pass the flag further down.
>
> Alternative would be cma_alloc_nofail(). That helps avoid people
> passing
> stuff like GFP_USER and wondering why it doesn't have an effect.
But since we're doing a logical AND with __GFP_NOWARN, we're not passing
any other values down - this makes it equivalent to the previous
version, in that only __GFP_NOWARN can be passed to
alloc_contig_range().
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists