Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] non-mm: discourage the usage of __GFP_NOFAIL and encourage GFP_NOFAIL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 09:58:36PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
> This is true, but I assume this won't incur overhead at runtime since the
> compiler resolves GFP_KERNEL | GFP_NOFAIL at compile-time.
> Only readers might find some bits are duplicated OR twice?

It's not really the overhead.  Having a single main flag make it very
easy to grep for and find abuses.





[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux