From: tytso@mit.edu
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 02:19:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140326061904.GA4907@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403251800320.21733@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> The point is not to add new callers and new code should handle NULL
> correctly, not that we should run around changing current users to just do
> infinite retries. Checkpatch should have nothing to do with that.
My problem with this doctrinaire "there should never be any new users"
is that sometiems there *are* worse things than infinite retries. If
the alternative is bringing the entire system down, or livelocking the
entire system, or corrupting user data, __GFP_NOFAIL *is* the more
appropriate option.
If you try to tell those of us outside of the mm layer, "thou shalt
never use __GFP_NOFAIL in new code", and we have some new code where
the alternative is worse, we can either open-code the loop, or have
some mm hackers and/or checkpatch whine at us.
Andrew has declared that he'd prefer that we not open code the retry
loop; if you want to disagree with Andrew, feel free to pursuade him
otherwise. If you want to tell me that I should accept user data
corruption, I'm going to ignore you (and/or checkpatch).
Regards,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-26 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-21 16:18 [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL Fabian Frederick
2014-03-21 20:00 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-21 23:21 ` Fabian Frederick
2014-03-21 23:27 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-22 17:03 ` tytso
2014-03-22 17:15 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-22 17:26 ` tytso
2014-03-22 17:32 ` tytso
2014-03-22 17:55 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-22 18:12 ` tytso
2014-03-22 18:56 ` Joe Perches
2014-03-26 1:07 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-22 19:24 ` Dave Jones
2014-03-26 1:06 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-26 6:19 ` tytso [this message]
2014-03-26 6:32 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-26 13:29 ` tytso
2014-03-27 4:38 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-22 21:13 ` Fabian Frederick
2014-03-24 14:00 ` One Thousand Gnomes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140326061904.GA4907@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=fabf@skynet.be \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox