On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:19 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hey, it's three weeks later and we're about to miss 5.2.
>
> This sucks, Matthew.
Yes.
And I do think that having a real gfp field there would be better than
the very odd xa_flags that is *marked* as being gfp_t, but isn't
really a gfp_t at all.
So how about we apply Johannes' patch, and then work on making that
xa_flags field be a proper type of its own. Because it really isn't a
gfp_t, and never has been, even if there might be some very limited
and hacky overlap right now.
Alternatrively, the subset of bits that _can_ be used as a gfp should
actually be used as such, in xas_alloc/xas_nomem. So that you can do
xa_init_flags(&mapping->i_pages, XA_FLAGS_LOCK_IRQ | __GFP_ACCOUNT);
in __address_space_init_once() and it would do what it is supposed to do.
Willy?
Linus
