From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (alsa0.perex.cz [77.48.224.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54491C433FE for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (alsa1.perex.cz [207.180.221.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99957168C; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:11:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa0.perex.cz 99957168C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alsa-project.org; s=default; t=1668582737; bh=zJUKF6B5wFDQpbk6RK2X5F8SYhcjLUE/tEWHlFSY8dU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Cc:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=kFvpXBacfiDq2Vrx8rcKzVcfFka71j4bNF1yNZi+tS4bjdyyaFNPpONKvc+II8ofp Wp0L9viu/rhdOy+N77rGkEzzIH+am3mkhULVIL+8mlEzn9KqI2yXGi0AgMgKbU0G8m 3lBgBG02olBoM/UDT6xIAB+p9sC8AP8BHlmuE1mo= Received: from alsa1.perex.cz (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5C5F800B5; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:11:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 50401) id B4C6EF80169; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:11:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 504CCF800B5 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:11:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 alsa1.perex.cz 504CCF800B5 Authentication-Results: alsa1.perex.cz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BMV2L/XV" Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2E16185F; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCAD1C433D6; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:11:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1668582674; bh=zJUKF6B5wFDQpbk6RK2X5F8SYhcjLUE/tEWHlFSY8dU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BMV2L/XVq3E4FzYxRA5sBJZqAKYUQbu9BdO1dXl0c8ZCElt4lSimYTB4GO7Z24qjm kI0FzTBs+IIAUJeAW6mROyWAOFLoPpc1EIMgx5OGMPTyVsTC4USEQkNBgtLwdrFdaY sxe718Vn7b8WWwyaxHU5mxH0JZFk/KczdyXRdpq/0ptjUJoPryOmoT5HXcz76B5iIS +yzicr64Ss0txe2dkw+Ikpts9er6Je7q68fj/Yijarx/ht/FBhpzVbeNGbZeRspYFf RG6kEQESaVupz3EzjRbND7MDxqS/BBnsO4R/4VvV5O+ihHPe1O4qjcLA4IhhRN74HA s4kd5LzGpAgew== Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:11:09 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] dma-mapping: reject __GFP_COMP in dma_alloc_attrs Message-ID: References: <20221113163535.884299-1-hch@lst.de> <20221113163535.884299-8-hch@lst.de> <20221116061106.GA19118@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221116061106.GA19118@lst.de> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Alexandra Winter , Dennis Dalessandro , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai , Wenjia Zhang , iommu@lists.linux.dev, Russell King , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Robin Murphy , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marek Szyprowski X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers - http://www.alsa-project.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 07:11:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:11:50AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > In RDMA patches, you wrote that GFP_USER is not legal flag either. So it > > is better to WARN here for everything that is not allowed. > > So __GFP_COMP is actually problematic and changes behavior, and I plan > to lift an optimization from the arm code to the generic one that > only rounds up allocations to the next page size instead of the next > power of two, so I need this check now. Other flags including > GFP_USER are pretty bogus to, but I actually need to do a full audit > before rejecting them, which I've only done for GFP_COMP so far. ok, let's do it later. Thanks