On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:37 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/6/18 4:49 AM, Nicolas Boichat wrote: > >> So it would be fine even unchanged. The check would anyway need some > >> more love to catch the same with __GFP_DMA to be consistent and cover > >> all corner cases. > > Yes, the test is not complete. If we really wanted this to be > > accurate, we'd need to check that GFP_* exactly matches SLAB_CACHE_*. > > > > The only problem with dropping this is test that we should restore > > GFP_DMA32 warning/errors somewhere else (as Christopher pointed out > > here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/22/430), especially for kmalloc > > case. > > I meant just dropping that patch hunk, not the whole test. Then the test > stays as it is and will keep warning anyone calling kmalloc(GFP_DMA32). > It would also warn anyone calling kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_DMA32) on > SLAB_CACHE_DMA32 cache, but since the gfp can be just dropped, and you > as the only user of this so far will do that, it's fine? I missed your point, this would work fine indeed. Thanks. > > Maybe this can be done in kmalloc_slab.
