On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:54:09 +0800 Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The patch seems reasonable to me. I'd like to see some examples of > > these resume-time callsite which are performing the GFP_KERNEL > > allocations, please. You have found some kernel bugs, so those should > > be fully described. > > There are two examples on 2/3 and 3/3 of the patchset, see below link: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135040325717213&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135040327317222&w=2 > > Sorry for not Cc them to linux-mm because I am afraid of making noise > in mm list. Don't worry about mailing list noise ;) > > > > This is just awful. Why oh why do we write code in macros when we have > > a nice C compiler? > > The two helpers are following style of local_irq_save() and > local_irq_restore(), so that people can use them easily, that is > why I define them as macro instead of inline. local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore() were mistakes :( It's silly to write what appears to be a C function and then have it operate like Pascal (warning: I last wrote some Pascal in 66 B.C.). > > > > These can all be done as nice, clean, type-safe, documented C > > functions. And if they can be done that way, they *should* be done > > that way! > > > > And I suggest that a better name for memalloc_noio_save() is > > memalloc_noio_set(). So this: > > IMO, renaming as memalloc_noio_set() might not be better than _save > because the _set name doesn't indicate that the flag should be stored first. You could add __must_check to the function definition to ensure that all callers save its return value. -- 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>