From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:15:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [1/3] Add __GFP_THISNODE to avoid fallback to other nodes and ignore cpuset/memory policy restrictions. In-Reply-To: <20060811110821.51096659.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20060810124137.6da0fdef.akpm@osdl.org> <20060811110821.51096659.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, pj@sgi.com, jes@sgi.com, Andy Whitcroft List-ID: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I would rather avoid fiddling around with making __GFP_xxx conditional. > > We have seen to what problems this could lead. > > What problems? I just cleaned out the #ifdefs from the __GFP_xx section because you told me that some comparisions could go haywire. if __GFP_xx would be zero. See our discussion recently on __GFP_DMA32. F.e. Tests like (__GFP_DMA | __GFP_THISNODE) == __GFP_THISNODE would give wrong positives if __GFP_THISNODE would be 0. -- 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