From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751712AbcEUA5M (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 20 May 2016 20:57:12 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:38122 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751422AbcEUA5G (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 May 2016 20:57:06 -0400
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 01:57:01 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Salah Triki <salah.triki@acm.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: befs: replace GFP_KERNEL by GFP_NOFS
Message-ID: <20160521005701.GV14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1463742428-4862-1-git-send-email-salah.triki@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1463742428-4862-1-git-send-email-salah.triki@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:07:08PM +0100, Salah Triki wrote:
> Since this is a filesystem driver, using the flag GFP_NOFS is more 
> appropriate than the flag GFP_KERNEL.

What does "more appropriate" mean?  Either there is a specific reason, or
it's a cargo-culting, plain and simple.  _Why_ does it need GFP_NOFS?