[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1467950431.17638.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 06:00:31 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Masashi Honma <masashi.honma@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-audit@...hat.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, johannes@...solutions.net,
pablo@...filter.org, kaber@...sh.net, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu,
dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
hal.rosenstock@...il.com, paul@...l-moore.com, eparis@...hat.com,
zbr@...emap.net, pshelar@...ira.com, ccaulfie@...hat.com,
teigland@...hat.com, bsingharora@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/7] net: Add allocation flag to rtnl_unicast()
On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 12:15 +0900, Masashi Honma wrote:
=
> Thanks for comment.
>
> I have selected GFP flags based on existing code.
>
> I have selected GFP_ATOMIC in inet6_netconf_get_devconf() because
> skb was allocated with GFP_ATOMIC.
Point is : we should remove GFP_ATOMIC uses as much as we can.
Everytime we see one of them, we should think why it was added
and if this is really needed.
inet6_netconf_get_devconf() is a perfect example of one careless
GFP_ATOMIC usage
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/646291/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists