On Thu 01-09-16 11:13:47, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 31-08-16 14:30:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:14:59 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > I didn't see anything wrong with the patch but it's worth highlighting > > > that this hunk means we are now out of GFP bits. > > > > Well ugh. What are we to do about that? > > Can we simply give these AS_ flags their own word in mapping rather than > squash them together with gfp flags and impose the restriction on the > number of gfp flags. There was some demand for new gfp flags already and > mapping flags were in the way. OK, it seems this got unnoticed. What do you think about the following two patches? I have only compile tested them and git grep suggests nobody else should be relying on storing gfp_mask into flags directly. So either I my grep-foo fools me or this should be safe. The two patches will come as a reply to this email. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>