On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 21:36 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > kvmalloc() is just kvmalloc_node(), and if we disregard the
> > __vmalloc_node_flags_caller() but - since kvmalloc() doesn't care
> > about
> > node anyway - just use __vmalloc() there, it should be easy? The
> > pgprot_t argument is just PAGE_KERNEL, and the other stuff doesn't
> > really matter.
> >
> > gfpflags_allow_blocking() is a pretty simple inline, and even if
> > we'd
> > implement it to always return false we'd get the old rhashtable
> > behaviour.
>
> I was reading commit d0164adc89f6 ("mm, page_alloc: distinguish
> between
> being unable to sleep, unwilling to slee...") which introduced
> gfpflags_allow_blocking() and did a lot more stuff. So I could not
> really determine the implications of backporting
> gfpflags_allow_blocking(). We can indeed probably make it work for
> rhashtable easily, but will that be appropriate if some other
> backport code starts using it.
Huh, ok, that's a good point. I guess I'll take this for now.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
