On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:45:48AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > I have in mind a more explicit statement of how much waiting is > acceptable. > > GFP_NOFAIL - wait indefinitely Why not call it GFP_SMALL? It wouldn't fail. The size would have to be less than some limit. If the size was too large, that would trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE(). I obviously understand that this duplicates the information in the size parameter but the point is that GFP_SMALL allocations have been reviewed, updated, and don't have error handling code. We'd keep GFP_KERNEL which would keep the existing behavior. (Which is that it can sleep and it can fail). I think that maps to GFP_RETRY but GFP_RETRY is an uglier name. People could still use __GFP_NOFAIL for larger allocations. regards, dan carpenter
