It seems that this email didn't get delivered due to some stupid gmail spam policy. Let me try to repost via a different relay. Sorry to those who have seen the original message and get a duplicate now. On Wed 21-12-16 08:03:53, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 20-12-16 14:13:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:38:22 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > So what are we going to do about this patch? > > > > > > Well if Andrew doesn't object again, it should probably be applied. > > > Unless his silence here acts like a pocket-veto. > > > > > > Andrew? Anything to add? > > > > I guess we should give in to reality and do this, or something like it. > > But Al said he was going to dig out some patches for us to consider? > > Al wanted to cover vmalloc GFP_NOFS context _inside_ the vmalloc > code. This is mostly orthogonal to this patch I believe. Besides > that I _think_ that it would be better to convert those vmalloc(NOFS) > users to the scope api rather than tweak the vmalloc. One reason to go > that way is that those vmalloc(NOFS) users need to be checked anyway > and something tells me that some of them can really be changed to > GFP_KERNEL. > > This helper is clear about its gfp mask expectation and complain loudly > if somebody wants something unexpected which is a good start I believe. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>