Jeff Garzik in his infinite wisdom spake thusly:Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:06.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:09.000000000 +0200
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
#define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)0x8000u)/* Return zeroed page on success */
#define __GFP_NOMEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x10000u) /* Don't use emergency reserves */
#define __GFP_HARDWALL ((__force gfp_t)0x20000u) /* Enforce hardwall cpuset memory allocs */
+#define __GFP_MEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u) /* Use emergency reserves */
This symbol name has nothing to do with its purpose. The entire area of code you are modifying could be described as having something to do with 'memalloc'.
GFP_EMERGENCY or GFP_USE_RESERVES or somesuch would be a far better symbol name.
I recognize that is matches with GFP_NOMEMALLOC, but that doesn't change the situation anyway. In fact, a cleanup patch to rename GFP_NOMEMALLOC would be nice.
I'm rather bad at picking names, but here goes:
PF_MEMALLOC -> PF_EMERGALLOC
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC -> __GFP_NOEMERGALLOC
__GFP_MEMALLOC -> __GFP_EMERGALLOC
Is that suitable and shall I prepare patches? Or do we want more ppl to
chime in and have a few more rounds?