Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

Andrew Morton
2025-11-20T18:04:19Z

On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:03:02 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:35:26 -0800 "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We should do a better job at enforcing gfp flags for vmalloc. Right now, we
> > have a kernel-doc for __vmalloc_node_range(), and hope callers pass in
> > supported flags. If a caller were to pass in an unsupported flag, we may
> > BUG, silently clear it, or completely ignore it.
> >
> > If we are more proactive about enforcing gfp flags, we can making sure
> > callers know when they may be asking for unsupported behavior.
> >
> > This patchset lets vmalloc control the incoming gfp flags, and cleans up
> > some hard to read gfp code.
>
> For the series,
>
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>

Thanks.

> >
> > ---
> > Linked rfc [1] and rfc v2[2] for convenience.
> >
> > Patch v2 -> v3:
> > Only changes the whitelist mask and comment in patch 1:
>
> I'd suggest s/whitelist/allow-list/.

Yeah, it's the modern way. But this was below the ^---$ separator so
it went away anyway.