From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98FA6B0003 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 04:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id p189so4780795pfp.1 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j61-v6si14312458plb.317.2018.04.09.01.26.53 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:26:50 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Block layer use of __GFP flags Message-ID: <20180409082650.GA869@infradead.org> References: <20180408065425.GD16007@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180408190825.GC5704@bombadil.infradead.org> <63d16891d115de25ac2776088571d7e90dab867a.camel@wdc.com> <20180409085349.31b10550@pentland.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180409085349.31b10550@pentland.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Bart Van Assche , "willy@infradead.org" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "martin@lichtvoll.de" , "oleksandr@natalenko.name" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Why don't you fold the 'flags' argument into the 'gfp_flags', and drop > the 'flags' argument completely? > Looks a bit pointless to me, having two arguments denoting basically > the same ... Wrong way around. gfp_flags doesn't really make much sense in this context. We just want the plain flags argument, including a non-block flag for it.