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. > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> > CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> I think it was done this way to show that if CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n then the bit could be reused for something else but I can't think of any reason why that would be useful; what would need to add a gfp bit that would also happen to depend on CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n? Nothing comes to mind to save a bit. There are other cases of this as well, like __GFP_OTHER_NODE which is only useful for thp and it's defined unconditionally. So this seems fine to me. -- 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>