From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51EA14C588; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732297406; cv=none; b=Tdfj+/uQU+FajWOz5pcSxO6s/lbBWEUZuLbokqhJIwFKU3RACar5w752c3/xu29eO1qEDW1Sq2FuzyvF2rZTomx1Qg3zMcleSoXhc0DwBxYNk3cXMq178ufZdJDCFINj5cgyr3j2LuA4dl8kUgMBCazDqb3xhDQONb6cxoGyg70= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732297406; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fFwijfOxlZhyLjC5cvqXE1Ic8nJUU0MnYP3m78oxHic=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=p1fdjil8it9F7urw0eP8+7HbUFLisIYjoH1vxUU2ZEm8gFtilnldC/qH/IrgxvPreAvq7XznHXTE7OJgnwBDG9JPKWNhEF/8chCZESzLXe8WGHvfLnFtmLVGMu4NcEWAHbshq1sTkSmxg1X83xXED7q9JVqw8/LIHs4JuBYGwv0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=G8d4pSlO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="G8d4pSlO" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3C08B403E5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1732297404; bh=8f7TkqLwm2GzCFQWbTk383Q+0EWsnQUJoRH4kQSYV94=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=G8d4pSlONfpO5NNa7ozuMAV4AieIakFDb9dq3yd25aTUQMnq27cIwMD4RZjQmuuja Z94gTv0RElkMXIZmukRin+If/W8DPZzuGLCReP/TVx9v1porZC/wdQZ+smJjQcQJ5g 42FcjW1FNOT1pYrxoNPlMcRA2RQ0ZQfXfOxgLnT7iOIElxUM6ny+3RfvGhRb1luu4J DDq/5mpvttdvUimUKU3ftCfcLHOsehUQ69theE9tYaOBwgkEHhH1KFHCJfpGYgqWQe VUyAuRpenqGxXkznWqNEgOFa7S9ZDHF1UVsqaBZPy0RNH0TITWMyeo/TGvXEK5H7ih Ywhaf5950AGrw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C08B403E5; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:43:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Pavel Tikhomirov Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Pavel Tikhomirov Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io: indicate that vmalloc supports GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO In-Reply-To: <20241119093922.567138-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com> References: <20241119093922.567138-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:43:23 -0700 Message-ID: <87mshr2mh0.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Pavel Tikhomirov writes: > After the commit 451769ebb7e79 ("mm/vmalloc: alloc GFP_NO{FS,IO} for > vmalloc") in v5.17 it is now safe to use GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO flags > in [k]vmalloc, let's reflect it in documentation. > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Tikhomirov > --- > .../core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst | 20 ++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) Applied, thanks. jon