Hi Matthew, Many thanks for your review. On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 13:28 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:21:19PM +0100, Karolina Drobnik wrote: > > +#include <linux/types.h> > > + > > +#define __GFP_ZERO 0x8000u > > +#define __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM 0x400000u > > + > > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 26 > > +#define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1)) > > + > > +#define __GFP_HIGH 0x20u > > +#define __GFP_IO 0x40u > > +#define __GFP_FS 0x80u > > +#define __GFP_NOWARN 0x200u > > +#define __GFP_ATOMIC 0x80000u > > +#define __GFP_ACCOUNT 0x100000u > > +#define __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM 0x2000000u > > Why have you reordered the bits here? I probably mixed them up when I tried to merge the stubs I did for memblock and the files that were already there. I'll fix it in v2. > > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 26 > > -#define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1)) > > - > > -#define __GFP_HIGH 0x20u > > -#define __GFP_IO 0x40u > > -#define __GFP_FS 0x80u > > -#define __GFP_NOWARN 0x200u > > -#define __GFP_ZERO 0x8000u > > -#define __GFP_ATOMIC 0x80000u > > -#define __GFP_ACCOUNT 0x100000u > > -#define __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM 0x400000u > > -#define __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM 0x2000000u > > The original ordering makes more sense to me (but then it would; I > did > it)
