On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be >> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK, >> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK. >> >> This simple patch makes it unconditional. > > __GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined? > > If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute > it where necessary. > The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be ignored by the page allocator ? -- 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>