From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762961AbZE3RgN (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:36:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760595AbZE3Rf6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:58 -0400 Received: from oblivion.subreption.com ([66.240.236.22]:60274 "EHLO mail.subreption.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760573AbZE3Rf6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 From: "Larry H." To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> References: <20090520185005.GC10756@oblivion.subreption.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Subreption LLC Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10:21 Sat 30 May , Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote: > > > > + if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE)) > > + gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE; > > WTF? Indeed. > Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;" Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective clearing road...) Larry