From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752290AbZEDTV3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:21:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752907AbZEDTVT (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:21:19 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com ([209.85.220.158]:58839 "EHLO mail-fx0-f158.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643AbZEDTVT (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 15:21:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Ukl9O7Lh+UKUYlyTMdWrxqs9vC2+7ed1FkrifKqmgGqL1ps/eROYnC7sDPdQUpPQMv xPL64FwjWgto4DlYZRqi/gXZZeGTQX5nktLx07xUQf2211YgFQ9UaZ35hxnp2tC/wKwq B+1h8nLhE17lL7HUVaJWsuRFNnrhbcgVpOMpM= Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:21:17 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , mingo@elte.hu, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, riel@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com, xemul@openvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] mm: introduce __GFP_PANIC modifier Message-ID: <20090504192117.GB31176@lenovo> References: <20090504122740.GH4173@lenovo> <20090504131311.GA23330@elte.hu> <20090504131638.GJ4173@lenovo> <20090504115335.9bc08587.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090504115335.9bc08587.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Andrew Morton - Mon, May 04, 2009 at 11:53:35AM -0700] | On Mon, 4 May 2009 09:47:45 -0400 (EDT) | Christoph Lameter wrote: | | > | > | > Could you try to avoid consuming another GFP flag? __GFP_BITS_SHIFT is | > used elsewhere to figure out where to put miscellanous flags into the gfp | > mask. This is pretty limited right now and so the patch does work. | | hm, yes, there are seven bits left. | | afaict bit 3 (0x08) is unused? | | Is __GFP_PANIC very useful? I expect it will permit a very small code | saving at a relatively small number of callsites, all of which are | __init anyway? | Actually the issue with possible NULL deref already fixed in -tip tree commit 9a8709d. There was rather an idea on what will be more convenient -- call for __GFP_NOFAIL or use BUG_ON on allocation failure or call kmalloc with __GFP_PANIC and forget about if it could fail :). Since Christoph said that it's discommended to introduce new flag -- I'm fine with that. -- Cyrill