Re: introducing __GFP_PANIC

Pekka Enberg
2009-05-04T10:33:21Z

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:11 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> I believe this version should be correct (still RFC).
> __GFP_NOWARN has printk limit so instead of making
> additional checks (while combining those prink in
> original code) just adding panic with order and flags
> should be cleaner (as it done at moment :)

Looks good to me!

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

I suspect the patch needs some additional work for -mm due to Mel
Gorman's page allocator cleanup and optimization patches.

Pekka