On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 09/18/2012 07:06 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > >> @@ -35,6 +35,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > >> #else > >> #define ___GFP_NOTRACK 0 > >> #endif > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM > >> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0x400000u > >> +#else > >> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0 > >> +#endif > > > > Could you leave __GFP_MEMCG a simple definition and then define GFP_MEMCG > > to be zer0 if !MEMCG_KMEM? I think that would be cleaner and the > > __GFP_KMEMCHECK another case that would be good to fix up. > > > > > > > I can, but what does this buy us? All the numeric values should be defined with __ unconditionally so that they can be used in future context. Note the comment above the __GFP_XX which says "Do not use this directly". > Also, in any case, this can be done incrementally, and for the other > flag as well, as you describe. There is only one other flag that does not follow the scheme. I'd appreciate it if you could submit a patch to fix up the __GFP_NOTRACK conditional there. There is no need to do this incrementally. Do it the right way immediately. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>