From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:58:57 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix confusing __GFP_REPEAT related comments Message-ID: <20071202115857.GB31637@holomorphy.com> References: <20071129214828.GD20882@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071129214828.GD20882@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mel@skynet.ie, apw@shadowen.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:48:28PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > The definition and use of __GFP_REPEAT, __GFP_NOFAIL and __GFP_NORETRY > in the core VM have somewhat differing comments as to their actual > semantics. Annoyingly, the flags definition has inline and header > comments, which might be interpreted as not being equivalent. Just add > references to the header comments in the inline ones so they don't go > out of sync in the future. In their use in __alloc_pages() clarify that > the current implementation treats low-order allocations and __GFP_REPEAT > allocations as distinct cases, albeit currently with the same result. This is a bit beyond the scope of the patch, but doesn't the obvious livelock behavior here disturb anyone else? -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org