From: "Larry H." <research@subreption.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905301020260.3435@localhost.localdomain>
On 10:21 Sat 30 May , Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote:
> >
> > + if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> > + gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
>
> WTF?
Indeed.
> Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;"
Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test
should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a
place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't
think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the
set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective
clearing road...)
Larry
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Larry H." <research@subreption.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905301020260.3435@localhost.localdomain>
On 10:21 Sat 30 May , Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote:
> >
> > + if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE))
> > + gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;
>
> WTF?
Indeed.
> Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;"
Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test
should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a
place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't
think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the
set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective
clearing road...)
Larry
--
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:[~2009-05-30 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-20 18:50 [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Larry H.
2009-05-20 18:50 ` Larry H.
2009-05-20 21:15 ` Olaf Titz
2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-30 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-30 17:33 ` Larry H. [this message]
2009-05-30 17:33 ` Larry H.
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=20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com \
--to=research@subreption.com \
--cc=faith@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pageexec@freemail.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.