Re: Block layer use of __GFP flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 11:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int generic_ide_resume(struct device *dev)
> >  
> >  	memset(&rqpm, 0, sizeof(rqpm));
> >  	rq = blk_get_request_flags(drive->queue, REQ_OP_DRV_IN,
> > -				   BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT);
> > +				   BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT, __GFP_RECLAIM);
> 
> Is there any reason to use __GFP_RECLAIM directly. I guess you wanted to
> have GFP_NOIO semantic, right? So why not be explicit about that. Same
> for other instances of this flag in the patch

Hello Michal,

Thanks for the review. The use of __GFP_RECLAIM in this code (which was
called __GFP_WAIT in the past) predates the git history. In other words, it
was introduced before kernel version 2.6.12 (2005). So I'm reluctant to make
such a change in the IDE code. But I will make that change in the SCSI code.

Bart.







[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux