From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5273E6B007B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:23:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:23:49 +1100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL Message-ID: <20100216072349.GI5723@laptop> References: <20100216085706.c7af93e1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100216092147.85ef7619.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100216102626.5f6f0e11.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.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: David Rientjes Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:03:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > I hope no 3rd vendor (proprietary) driver uses __GFP_NOFAIL, they tend to > > believe API is trustable and unchanged. > > > > I hope they don't use it with GFP_ATOMIC, either, because it's never been > respected in that context. We can easily audit the handful of cases in > the kernel that use __GFP_NOFAIL (it takes five minutes at the max) and > prove that none use it with GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOFS. We don't need to add > multitudes of warnings about using a deprecated flag with ludicrous > combinations (does anyone really expect GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL to work > gracefully)? You don't need to add warnings, just don't break existing working combinations and nobody has anything to complain about. -- 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