On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 08:04:51PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:29:57AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > We're not holding a lock here so we can use the gfp flags the caller > > > specifies instead of GFP_ATOMIC. The callers use GFP_ATOMIC so this > > > change doesn't affect how the kernel runs, but it's a cleanup. > > > > Nak. We are holding a lock in all the xhci_queue* functions, so we > > need GFP_ATOMIC. It's locked in a parent function, xhci_urb_enqueue(). > > > > Sorry, bad changlog on my part. I saw that it was locked in the > parent, but I meant that it's not taking a lock here. The parent > specifies GFP_ATOMIC so the parent is fine. > > I don't think we should bother passing the GFP flags if we don't use > them. Ok, now I understand, and I agree. Please resend the patch with a better change log and I'll apply it. Sarah Sharp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
