From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/13: eCryptfs] eCryptfs Patch Set Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:23:54 +0300 Message-ID: <84144f020607070523t62de1abar959744be35a6ca63@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060513033742.GA18598@hellewell.homeip.net> <20060520095740.GA12237@infradead.org> <20060707115422.GA4705@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]:37014 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932082AbWGGMXz (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 08:23:55 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so288630nfc for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 05:23:54 -0700 (PDT) To: "Christoph Hellwig" , "Phillip Hellewell" , "Andrew Morton" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060707115422.GA4705@infradead.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 7/7/06, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > - any reason to use the SLAB_* flags instead of GFP_? I'm a bit surprised > SLAB_* still exists at all.. I have been wanting to kill the SLAB_* flags for some time now, so yes, please use the GFP_* ones instead. Thanks. Pekka