On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:02:39 +0000 Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi124@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:34:12AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:56:44 +0000 > > Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi124@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > - Added function __crst_table_alloc() which is similar to crst_table_alloc() > > > but accepts an extra argument gfp_t. The function uses given allocation > > > flag to allocate pages. > > > > > > - Added a function __page_table_alloc() to allocate page table entries. This > > > function is allows caller to specify the page allocation flag. The > > > allocation flag is then passed to alloc_page(). The rest of the function is > > > copy of the original page_table_alloc(). > > > > The approach of this patch series seems straightforward, the only nitpick I > > have is the fact that two new functions __crst_table_alloc/__page_table_alloc > > are introduced. There aren't many call sites for the two original functions, > > namely 4 for crst_table_alloc and 3 for page_table_alloc. Why not add the > > gfp flag GFP_KERNEL to these call sites? Then the two additional functions > > would not be needed. > > Thanks a lot Martin for your reply. Here is a new patch, which the changes > you suggested. Looks good now. For the s390 architecture part: Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
