Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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.

It's in 3.7-rc1.

commit 3e648ebe076390018c317881d7d926f24d7bac6b
Author: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Mon Oct 8 16:33:52 2012 -0700

    make GFP_NOTRACK definition unconditional

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/