> On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +struct svc_rdma_op_ctxt *svc_rdma_get_context_gfp(struct svcxprt_rdma *xprt,
>> + gfp_t flags)
>> +{
>> + struct svc_rdma_op_ctxt *ctxt;
>> +
>> + ctxt = kmem_cache_alloc(svc_rdma_ctxt_cachep, flags);
>> + if (!ctxt)
>> + return NULL;
>> + svc_rdma_init_context(xprt, ctxt);
>> + return ctxt;
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct svc_rdma_op_ctxt *svc_rdma_get_context(struct svcxprt_rdma *xprt)
>> +{
>> + struct svc_rdma_op_ctxt *ctxt;
>> +
>> + ctxt = kmem_cache_alloc(svc_rdma_ctxt_cachep,
>> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
>> + svc_rdma_init_context(xprt, ctxt);
>> return ctxt;
>
> Sounds like you should have just added a gfp_t argument to
> svc_rdma_get_context.
There is only one (new) call site that needs it. I can simplify
this patch as Sagi suggested before, but it seems silly to
introduce the extra clutter of adding a gfp_t argument
everywhere.
> And if we have any way to avoid the __GFP_NOFAIL
> I'd really appreciate if we could give that a try.
I’m not introducing the flag here.
Changing all the svc_rdma_get_context() call sites to handle
allocation failure (when it is already highly unlikely) is
a lot of needless work, IMO, and not related to supporting
bi-directional RPC.
--
Chuck Lever
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
