From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] scsi: stop passing a gfp_mask argument down the command setup path Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:28:58 +0200 Message-ID: <542BF38A.9040509@acm.org> References: <1410107469-896-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1410107469-896-5-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from albert.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.90]:42046 "EHLO albert.telenet-ops.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750768AbaJAM3G (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:29:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1410107469-896-5-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 09/07/14 18:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > There is no reason for ULDs to pass in a flag on how to allocate the S/G > lists. While we don't need GFP_ATOMIC for the blk-mq case because we > don't hold locks, that decision can be made way down the chain without > having to pass a pointless gfp_mask argument. Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche