From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 901B16B007B for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o1G1TuP8008524 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:56 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E759445DE5B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B335145DE57 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A821DB803F for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62E8EF8003 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:54 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:26:26 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL Message-Id: <20100216102626.5f6f0e11.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20100216085706.c7af93e1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100216092147.85ef7619.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:13:57 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > As I already explained when you first brought this up, the possibility of > > > not invoking the oom killer is not unique to GFP_DMA, it is also possible > > > for GFP_NOFS. Since __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated and there are no current > > > users of GFP_DMA | __GFP_NOFAIL, that warning is completely unnecessary. > > > We're not adding any additional __GFP_NOFAIL allocations. > > > > > > > Please add documentation about that to gfp.h before doing this. > > Doing this without writing any documenation is laziness. > > (WARNING is a style of documentation.) > > > > This is already documented in the page allocator, but I guess doing it in > include/linux/gfp.h as well doesn't hurt. > I want warning when someone uses OBSOLETE interface but... Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki I hope no 3rd vendor (proprietary) driver uses __GFP_NOFAIL, they tend to believe API is trustable and unchanged. > > > mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL > > __GFP_NOFAIL was deprecated in dab48dab, so add a comment that no new > users should be added. > > Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes > --- > include/linux/gfp.h | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > * _might_ fail. This depends upon the particular VM implementation. > * > * __GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the caller > - * cannot handle allocation failures. > + * cannot handle allocation failures. This modifier is deprecated and no new > + * users should be added. > * > * __GFP_NORETRY: The VM implementation must not retry indefinitely. > * > > -- > 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 > -- 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