From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx119.postini.com [74.125.245.119]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C89EF6B005D for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5065B42F.5010007@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:29:03 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional References: <1348826194-21781-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <0000013a0d475174-343e3b17-6755-42c1-9dae-a9287ad7d403-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <0000013a0d475174-343e3b17-6755-42c1-9dae-a9287ad7d403-000000@email.amazonses.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be >> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK, >> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK. >> >> This simple patch makes it unconditional. > > __GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined? > > If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute > it where necessary. > The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be ignored by the page allocator ? -- 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