From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f198.google.com (mail-qk0-f198.google.com [209.85.220.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A526B0006 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-f198.google.com with SMTP id g7so889439qkd.14 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id u5sor2300452qta.52.2018.02.15.13.41.51 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:41:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:41:48 -0800 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] percpu: allow select gfp to be passed to underlying allocators Message-ID: <20180215214148.GV695913@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dennis Zhou Cc: Christoph Lameter , Daniel Borkmann , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:08:16AM -0600, Dennis Zhou wrote: > +/* the whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators */ > +#define gfp_percpu_mask(gfp) (((gfp) & (__GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN)) | \ > + GFP_KERNEL) Isn't there just one place where gfp comes in from outside? If so, this looks like a bit of overkill. Can't we just filter there? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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