Hi Rob, On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 05:05:32 -0700 Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? The commit message for 9178e3dcb121 seems to say that would be correct. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpQrGejZzZli.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
