From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344836B004F for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4ACCA3B402000078000187BE@vpn.id2.novell.com> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:20:36 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] adjust gfp mask passed on nested vmalloc() invocation References: <4AC9E38E0200007800017F57@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4ACC62DC0200007800018690@vpn.id2.novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>> Hugh Dickins 07.10.09 14:08 >>> >Well, now we've accepted that this code cannot be used in_interrupt(), >there's no need for your #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM nor for my memset: just >use __GFP_ZERO as it was before, and your patch would amount to or'ing >__GFP_HIGHMEM into gfp_mask for the __vmalloc_node case - wouldn't it? Plus the consolidation of masking the passed in gfp_mask by GFP_RECLAIM_MASK also for the nested vmalloc() case, in particular to remove the GFP_DMA* possibly coming in from vmalloc_32(). But yes, it will become simpler. Jan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org