From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m16MASaV010738 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:10:28 -0500 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m16NEAZM142358 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:14:10 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m16NEAbo009448 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:14:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:14:09 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: fix misleading __GFP_REPEAT related comments Message-ID: <20080206231409.GH3477@us.ibm.com> References: <20080206230512.GE3477@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: melgor@ie.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 06.02.2008 [15:08:39 -0800], Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > To clarify, the flags' semantics are: > > > > __GFP_NORETRY means try no harder than one run through __alloc_pages > > > > __GFP_REPEAT means __GFP_NOFAIL > > The __GFP_REPEAT == __GFP_NOFAIL? > > If so then remove __GFP_REPEAT. I'm purely documenting the state of things in this patch. In a follow-on set of patches, I try to change the semantics of __GFP_REPEAT for large-order allocations. Also, note, this is only in "this implementation" as mentioned all over page_alloc.c. Thanks, Nish -- 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