From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:13:16 +0300 Message-ID: <20150409151316.GO10964@mwanda> References: <1428579988-10167-1-git-send-email-lambert.quentin@gmail.com> <1428579988-10167-3-git-send-email-lambert.quentin@gmail.com> <20150409123633.GN10964@mwanda> <55268DCB.3010201@gmail.com> <20150409145035.GC16501@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:40869 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753536AbbDIPNe (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:13:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Julia Lawall Cc: Quentin Lambert , "David S. Miller" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:53:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > > explain better. > > > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code > > it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and > > we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly > > by choice and it's wrong. In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we > > shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches. > > But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL > choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API? We still only have to revert one patch either way. regards, dan carpenter