From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A7EC6B0055 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 15:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A15A8C7.2030505@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:17:27 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator References: <20090520183045.GB10547@oblivion.subreption.com> In-Reply-To: <20090520183045.GB10547@oblivion.subreption.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Larry H." Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar List-ID: Larry H. wrote: > This patch adds support for the SENSITIVE flag to the low level page > allocator. An additional GFP flag is added for use with higher level > allocators (GFP_SENSITIVE, which implies GFP_ZERO). Sensitive to what? Allocation failures? Kidding, I read the rest of your emails. However, chances are whoever runs into the code later on will not read everything. Would GFP_CONFIDENTIAL & PG_confidential be a better name, since it indicates the page stores confidential information, which should not be leaked? -- 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