From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754848Ab0HWWLl (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:11:41 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:56335 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754309Ab0HWWLj (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:11:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:11:29 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jan Kara Cc: David Rientjes , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] jbd: remove dependency on __GFP_NOFAIL Message-Id: <20100823151129.433875d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100823220347.GB3380@quack.suse.cz> References: <20100817095103.GA3557@quack.suse.cz> <20100823122813.1ffa3f2e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100823220347.GB3380@quack.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:03:47 +0200 Jan Kara wrote: > So do > you think that we should keep __GFP_NOFAIL as long as all callers are not > able to handle allocation failures in more reasonable way? The concept should be encapsulated in _some_ centralised fashion. Helper functions would work as well as __GFP_NOFAIL, and will move any runtime cost away from the good code and push it onto the bad code.