From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mpm@selenic.com, clameter@sgi.com,
mingo@elte.hu, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel_event()
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090501132818.b16704c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241201494.3086.3.camel@dhcp231-142.rdu.redhat.com>
On Fri, 01 May 2009 14:11:34 -0400
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 14:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:19:33 -0400
> > Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Somebody was going to fix this for us via lockdep annotation.
> > > >
> > > > <adds randomly-chosen cc>
> > >
> > > I really didn't forget this, but I can't figure out how to recreate it,
> > > so I don't know if my logic in the patch is sound. The patch certainly
> > > will shut up the complaint.
> >
> > Do you think we should merge the GFP_NOFS workaround for 2.6.30 and
> > fix all up nicely for 2.6.31?
>
> I'm all for it for 2.6.30
OK.
> although the patch really should have been
> the one that gets the audit use case too at
>
> >From me on Mar 18 Subject [PATCH] make inotify event handles use
> GFP_NOFS
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/18/310
I queued that as an incremental to Wu Fengguang's patch, because
inotify-use-gfp_nofs-in-kernel_event-to-work-around-a-lockdep-false-positive.patch
has a longer changelog ;)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mpm@selenic.com, clameter@sgi.com,
mingo@elte.hu, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel_event()
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090501132818.b16704c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241201494.3086.3.camel@dhcp231-142.rdu.redhat.com>
On Fri, 01 May 2009 14:11:34 -0400
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 14:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:19:33 -0400
> > Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Somebody was going to fix this for us via lockdep annotation.
> > > >
> > > > <adds randomly-chosen cc>
> > >
> > > I really didn't forget this, but I can't figure out how to recreate it,
> > > so I don't know if my logic in the patch is sound. The patch certainly
> > > will shut up the complaint.
> >
> > Do you think we should merge the GFP_NOFS workaround for 2.6.30 and
> > fix all up nicely for 2.6.31?
>
> I'm all for it for 2.6.30
OK.
> although the patch really should have been
> the one that gets the audit use case too at
>
> >From me on Mar 18 Subject [PATCH] make inotify event handles use
> GFP_NOFS
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/18/310
I queued that as an incremental to Wu Fengguang's patch, because
inotify-use-gfp_nofs-in-kernel_event-to-work-around-a-lockdep-false-positive.patch
has a longer changelog ;)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-01 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-30 2:00 [PATCH] use GFP_NOFS in kernel_event() Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 2:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 2:10 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-30 2:10 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-30 13:19 ` Eric Paris
2009-04-30 13:19 ` Eric Paris
2009-04-30 13:48 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 13:48 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 14:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 14:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 14:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 14:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 14:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 14:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-30 14:52 ` Eric Paris
2009-04-30 14:52 ` Eric Paris
2009-05-02 2:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 2:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 8:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 8:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 15:11 ` Eric Paris
2009-05-02 15:11 ` Eric Paris
2009-04-30 21:10 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-30 21:10 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-01 18:11 ` Eric Paris
2009-05-01 18:11 ` Eric Paris
2009-05-01 20:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-05-01 20:28 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-05 12:43 ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-05 12:43 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090501132818.b16704c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.