On Mon 23-08-10 12:28:13, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:51:03 +0200 > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon 16-08-10 19:58:01, David Rientjes wrote: > > > Removes the dependency on __GFP_NOFAIL by looping indefinitely in the > > > caller. > > > > > > The error handling when kzalloc() returns NULL in start_this_handle() > > > was removed since it was unreachable. > > Thanks! I've added the patch to my tree. > > Please unadd it. JBD should be fixed so that it can appropriately > handle out-of-memory conditions. Until that time we shouldn't hide its > shortcomings with this open-coded equivalent. Well, I wanted to make it easy for David so that he can proceed with his removal of __GFP_NOFAIL. I agree that pushing the looping from the allocator to the callers seems of a disputable value to me as well. So do you think that we should keep __GFP_NOFAIL as long as all callers are not able to handle allocation failures in more reasonable way? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
