On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Andrew Morton 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. > There's no runtime cost on the bad code, the calls never loop since the page allocator already loops itself. Regardless, I'll add a helper function to include/linux/gfp.h to do this with a WARN_ON_ONCE() inside the loop in case any order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER callers are ever added (and I really hope nobody merges those). -- 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
