From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=HMm1=J4=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F08C43A1D
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6418220C0C
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6418220C0C
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1726611AbeGLHWC (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:22:02 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:57004 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1725992AbeGLHWC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 12 Jul 2018 03:22:02 -0400
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
        id 8B3C86FB7B; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:15:36 +0200 (CEST)
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:15:36 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: remove unsupported gfp_mask parameter from
        cma_alloc()
Message-ID: <20180712071536.GA15506@lst.de>
References: <CGME20180709122019eucas1p2340da484acfcc932537e6014f4fd2c29@eucas1p2.samsung.com> <20180709121956.20200-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20180709122019eucas1p2340da484acfcc932537e6014f4fd2c29~-sqTPJKij2939229392eucas1p2j@eucas1p2.samsung.com> <CAAmzW4PPNYhUj_MeZox+ddq8MjXqnJs_AJ3xkayf710udD1pSg@mail.gmail.com> <20180710095056.GE14284@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAAmzW4P1m_T77DfQzDD6ysGaOF46++-0gwRaOajmo6ef=VYp=A@mail.gmail.com> <20180711085407.GB20050@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAAmzW4M3KADCZD9+B2h7=WsYksGtg-GzYRCJjbqK5Scceynrrg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAmzW4M3KADCZD9+B2h7=WsYksGtg-GzYRCJjbqK5Scceynrrg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:48:47AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> One of existing user is general DMA layer and it takes gfp flags that is
> provided by user. I don't check all the DMA allocation sites but how do
> you convince that none of them try to use anything other
> than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN]?

They use a few others things still like __GFP_COMP, __GPF_DMA or
GFP_HUGEPAGE.  But all these are bogus as we have various implementations
that can't respect them.  I plan to get rid of the gfp_t argument
in the dma_map_ops alloc method in a few merge windows because of that,
but it needs further implementation consolidation first.