Hi Dan,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:58 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This allocation should use the passed in GFP_ flags instead of
> GFP_KERNEL. All the callers that I reviewed passed GFP_KERNEL as the
> allocation flags so this might not affect runtime, but it's still worth
> cleaning up.
If all the callers are passing GFP_KERNEL anyway, then can we instead
remove the gfp_mask argument from these functions?
Anna
>
> Fixes: 5c83746a0cf2 ("pnfs/blocklayout: in-kernel GETDEVICEINFO XDR parsing")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c
> index 70f5563a8e81..65cbb5607a5f 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c
> @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ bl_parse_concat(struct nfs_server *server, struct pnfs_block_dev *d,
> int ret, i;
>
> d->children = kcalloc(v->concat.volumes_count,
> - sizeof(struct pnfs_block_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> + sizeof(struct pnfs_block_dev), gfp_mask);
> if (!d->children)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ bl_parse_stripe(struct nfs_server *server, struct pnfs_block_dev *d,
> int ret, i;
>
> d->children = kcalloc(v->stripe.volumes_count,
> - sizeof(struct pnfs_block_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> + sizeof(struct pnfs_block_dev), gfp_mask);
> if (!d->children)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
