Re: [PATCH 5/6] block: use GFP_NOIO instead of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM

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

To: "hch@xxxxxx" <hch@xxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] block: use GFP_NOIO instead of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:30:22 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20180509075408.16388-6-hch@lst.de>
References: <20180509075408.16388-1-hch@lst.de> <20180509075408.16388-6-hch@lst.de>
Wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 09:54 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We just can't do I/O when doing block layer requests allocations,
> so use GFP_NOIO instead of the even more limited __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx>

References:
- fix confusion around GFP_* flags and blk_get_request
  - From: Christoph Hellwig
- [PATCH 5/6] block: use GFP_NOIO instead of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/6] block: pass an explicit gfp_t to get_request
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] pkeys: Introduce PKEY_ALLOC_SIGNALINHERIT and change signal semantics
Previous by thread: [PATCH 5/6] block: use GFP_NOIO instead of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
Next by thread: [PATCH 6/6] block: consistently use GFP_NOIO instead of __GFP_NORECLAIM
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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