On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes 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. > > > > Still missing from linux-next as of this morning, I think this patch > should be merged. It's in 3.7-rc1. commit 3e648ebe076390018c317881d7d926f24d7bac6b Author: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon Oct 8 16:33:52 2012 -0700 make GFP_NOTRACK definition unconditional -- 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>