From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx174.postini.com [74.125.245.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ECE766B002B for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:02:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-da0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i14so3442106dad.14 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1348826194-21781-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa > > CC: Christoph Lameter > > CC: Mel Gorman > > CC: Andrew Morton > > Acked-by: David Rientjes > > I think it was done this way to show that if CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n then the > bit could be reused for something else but I can't think of any reason why > that would be useful; what would need to add a gfp bit that would also > happen to depend on CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n? Nothing comes to mind to save a > bit. > > There are other cases of this as well, like __GFP_OTHER_NODE which is only > useful for thp and it's defined unconditionally. So this seems fine to > me. > Still missing from linux-next as of this morning, I think this patch should be merged. -- 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