On Fri 25-08-17 09:28:19, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2017-08-25 08:35:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 23-08-17 19:57:09, Pavel Machek wrote: [...] > > > Dunno. < 1msec probably is temporary, 1 hour probably is not. If it causes > > > problems, can you just #define GFP_TEMPORARY GFP_KERNEL ? Treewide replace, > > > and then starting again goes not look attractive to me. > > > > I do not think we want a highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY without any meaning. > > This just supports spreading the flag usage without a clear semantic > > and it will lead to even bigger mess. Once we can actually define what > > the flag means we can also add its users based on that new semantic. > > It has real meaning. Which is? > You can define more exact meaning, and then adjust the usage. But > there's no need to do treewide replacement... I have checked most of them and except for the initially added onces the large portion where added without a good reasons or even break an intuitive meaning by taking locks. Seriously, if we need a short term semantic it should be clearly defined first. Is there any specific case why you think this patch is in a wrong direction? E.g. a measurable regression? -- 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>
