From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/core-api: memory-allocation: GFP_NOWAIT doesn't need __GFP_NOWARN
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:11:01 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877cd3aopm.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240729140127.244606-1-Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> writes:
> Since v6.8 the definition of GFP_NOWAIT has implied __GFP_NOWARN,
> so it is now redundant to add this flag explicitly.
>
> Update the docs to match, and emphasise the need for a fallback
> when using GFP_NOWAIT.
>
> Fixes: 16f5dfbc851b ("gfp: include __GFP_NOWARN in GFP_NOWAIT")
> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
>
> ---
>
> Based on: v6.11-rc1
>
> This change also evaporates the apparent typo of __GFP_NOWARN without
> the underscores in the documentation, but that doesn't really feel like
> it merits a dedicated patch.
>
> Not sure if this really merits a Fixes tag, but the docmuentation
> update might as well be picked into trees that have the corresponding
> code change.
>
> ---
> Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst b/Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst
> index 8b84eb4bdae7..0f19dd524323 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst
> @@ -45,8 +45,9 @@ here we briefly outline their recommended usage:
> * If the allocation is performed from an atomic context, e.g interrupt
> handler, use ``GFP_NOWAIT``. This flag prevents direct reclaim and
> IO or filesystem operations. Consequently, under memory pressure
> - ``GFP_NOWAIT`` allocation is likely to fail. Allocations which
> - have a reasonable fallback should be using ``GFP_NOWARN``.
> + ``GFP_NOWAIT`` allocation is likely to fail. Users of this flag need
> + to provide a suitable fallback to cope with such failures where
> + appropriate.
> * If you think that accessing memory reserves is justified and the kernel
Applied, thanks.
jon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-29 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-29 14:01 [PATCH] docs/core-api: memory-allocation: GFP_NOWAIT doesn't need __GFP_NOWARN Dave Martin
2024-07-29 14:22 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-07-29 15:49 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-29 21:11 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
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=877cd3aopm.fsf@trenco.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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