On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:03:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > I hope no 3rd vendor (proprietary) driver uses __GFP_NOFAIL, they tend to > > believe API is trustable and unchanged. > > > > I hope they don't use it with GFP_ATOMIC, either, because it's never been > respected in that context. We can easily audit the handful of cases in > the kernel that use __GFP_NOFAIL (it takes five minutes at the max) and > prove that none use it with GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOFS. We don't need to add > multitudes of warnings about using a deprecated flag with ludicrous > combinations (does anyone really expect GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL to work > gracefully)? You don't need to add warnings, just don't break existing working combinations and nobody has anything to complain about. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>