From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1164012AbeBOVlx (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:41:53 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:46597 "EHLO mail-qt0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1163784AbeBOVlw (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:41:52 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2257t8H7+7mMVe3hppM8t27ojPqGvKLezgxIYYg6P49Mm9zGb2IxulKyXMTZfFiMpOH+bFoN3w== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:41:48 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Dennis Zhou Cc: Christoph Lameter , Daniel Borkmann , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] percpu: allow select gfp to be passed to underlying allocators Message-ID: <20180215214148.GV695913@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:08:16AM -0600, Dennis Zhou wrote: > +/* the whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators */ > +#define gfp_percpu_mask(gfp) (((gfp) & (__GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN)) | \ > + GFP_KERNEL) Isn't there just one place where gfp comes in from outside? If so, this looks like a bit of overkill. Can't we just filter there? Thanks. -- tejun