On Mon 23-08-10 15:11:29, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:03:47 +0200 > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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? > > The concept should be encapsulated in _some_ centralised fashion. > > Helper functions would work as well as __GFP_NOFAIL, and will move any > runtime cost away from the good code and push it onto the bad code. Makes sense. Removed the patch. David, could you provide a function for non-failing allocation and then use this from JBD and whatever else code is also affected? That looks like a cleaner solution as Andrew points out... 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
