From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A786F272E63 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2025 13:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762177869; cv=none; b=gh0GN1j+yHTPx4F441TZy9VrOOPK5PD9b3SsSvB9YRjlN0iJugtG0TwokBgPrGAPVhKqxA6/nI96kjn8AXFzX6BHtIocSVSf0Xm94s7xLLhbYft/w5J183JicN+4mgQeUDl0S1AKpJLgRhKOdN/a6qMfCHSybqn/RfgbJeN7zx4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762177869; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uSJ5MFtzv8QRsnhy/ddyi/son0cmHhiAqNrZLpnU6G8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=U4O2SE+FvIdWV60EbSEcAVRF+XnCAeK0fqG8Go4m22ATz44yuILZVhgJVLwKcakNOvH80GDZF0LKy4mJ1Jb1iZ214lIXx5bP+H3oW9qP7rNxohWNTMAgP/8LQGIEnICY7E48CxtwOjx/qG8PFSnTNGE/gQ48VMaCoSJbB84Qvfc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=bmiRX0tr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="bmiRX0tr" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=uSJ5MFtzv8QRsnhy/ddyi/son0cmHhiAqNrZLpnU6G8=; b=bmiRX0trHcMFvaR7QUOgLfSZ3X Ns8Gpd/T/XZxm3vPareoub6JhZ1fweJZoAD6gvUKMrSoWfppLk1XnZAlCFhhhNZIF78W+FWPwpH/M sqcBljkLPcLnlLQdVBh4FS9JjOn7sqfj41XT6KQNpM/3Y1Intsgl0NraZ1ns9gFKY31qM2v4kQRrK I/40C89vXsKeKM1uaXpVADfAewVaoZ9UaZ8fL+2AnLfk41YHBXDABfytqmxBZIaqIriattecpHaWK IhCcgpy3mDnWbP1vzlvJZQ4+Cy657bMf89UR8gD0N/YEQEou8liJF2OTOjfSzNciStuHV3j6QiTIN 1OgSN+Lg==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vFuxc-00000009xaT-3sdc; Mon, 03 Nov 2025 13:51:04 +0000 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 05:51:04 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent Message-ID: References: <20251030164330.44995-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 01:57:01PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > I did some digging and am not entirely sure what flags vmalloc does NOT > > support. Is a better idea is to have explicitly supported flags and drop > > all others? > > > Maybe we should look at it vice versa. Focus on supported flags. In the > slab there is an adjust function which modifies the gfp and emits the warning > if passed GFP is part of buggy mask. Yes, explicitly whitelisting the (component)flags supported seems like a much more maintainable approach.