From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029856B00E0 for ; Sat, 30 May 2009 13:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 -0700 From: "Larry H." Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] Apply the PG_sensitive flag to audit subsystem Message-ID: <20090530173336.GG6535@oblivion.subreption.com> References: <20090520185005.GC10756@oblivion.subreption.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , pageexec@freemail.hu, faith@redhat.com List-ID: On 10:21 Sat 30 May , Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 May 2009, Larry H. wrote: > > > > + if (!(gfp_mask & GFP_SENSITIVE)) > > + gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE; > > WTF? Indeed. > Why is this different from just "gfp_mask |= GFP_SENSITIVE;" Blame anal retentiveness at the time of writing that. Surely the test should be ditched. Looking back at that, I honestly think there might be a place to plug the flag (in the caller) instead of doing that. I don't think there are many places to do it, so this particular patch from the set can be ditched and rewritten (if you want to take the selective clearing road...) Larry -- 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