Hi! > > > > 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. > > > > I don't see it. kmalloc() itself takes locks. Of course everyone takes > > locks. I don't think that's intuitive meaning. > > I was talking about users of the flag. I have seen some to take a lock > right after they allocated GFP_TEMPORARY object. Yes, I'd expect people to take locks after allocating temporary objects. kmalloc itself takes locks. If the allocation is "usually" freed within miliseconds, that should be enough. > > > Seriously, if we need a short term semantic it should be clearly defined > > > first. > > > > "milliseconds, not hours." > > > > > Is there any specific case why you think this patch is in a wrong > > > direction? E.g. a measurable regression? > > > > Not playing that game. You should argue why it is improvement. And I > > don't believe you did. > > Please read the whole changelog where I was quite verbose about how the > current flag is abused and how its semantic is weak and encourages a > wrong usage pattern. Moreover it is not even clear whether it helps > anything. I haven't seen any actual counter argument from you other than > "milliseconds not hours" without actually explaining how that would be > useful for any decisions done in the core MM layer. Well, I find that argumentation insufficient for global search&replace. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
