It looks like, at least for now, I can replace `sc->gfp_mask &
__GFP_ATOMIC` with `!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)`.. I'm not
sure if there would be any cases where we could otherwise sleep but
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is not set?
BR,
-R
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 4:03 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the mm tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c: In function 'can_block':
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c:29:28: error: '__GFP_ATOMIC' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'GFP_ATOMIC'?
> 29 | if (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_ATOMIC)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> | GFP_ATOMIC
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 9178e3dcb121 ("mm: discard __GFP_ATOMIC")
>
> interacting with commit
>
> 025d27239a2f ("drm/msm/gem: Evict active GEM objects when necessary")
>
> from the drm-msm tree.
>
> I have reverted the drm-msm tree commit for today.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
