From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] block: add gfp_mask argument to blk_rq_map_user and blk_rq_map_user_iov Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:35:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20080826163545.GA26201@infradead.org> References: <1219716654-27827-1-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1219716654-27827-2-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:58819 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753844AbYHZQfs (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:35:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219716654-27827-2-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: FUJITA Tomonori Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, dougg@torque.net, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:50AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > Currently, blk_rq_map_user and blk_rq_map_user_iov always do > GFP_KERNEL allocation. > > This adds gfp_mask argument to blk_rq_map_user and blk_rq_map_user_iov > so sg can use it (sg always does GFP_ATOMIC allocation). Most GFP_ATOMIC looks rather spurious to me, and are there probably for some historic reason. Do you have a caller that actually needs GFP_ATOMIC because it's under a spinlock or from irq context, or is this just to stay as close as possible to the existing sg code?