linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mm 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220907040529.266d2d9c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 04:05:29 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mm tree

Hi Rob,

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 05:05:32 -0700 Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> It looks like, at least for now, I can replace `sc->gfp_mask &
> __GFP_ATOMIC` with `!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)`.. I'm not
> sure if there would be any cases where we could otherwise sleep but
> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is not set?

The commit message for 9178e3dcb121 seems to say that would be correct.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped