From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762961AbZE3RgN (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:36:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760595AbZE3Rf6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:58 -0400 Received: from oblivion.subreption.com ([66.240.236.22]:60274 "EHLO mail.subreption.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760573AbZE3Rf6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 From: "Larry H." To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> References: <20090520185005.GC10756@oblivion.subreption.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Subreption LLC Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029856B00E0 for ; Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 From: "Larry H." Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> References: <20090520185005.GC10756@oblivion.subreption.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org