On 7/24/24 3:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 03:47:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> OK, now it makes more sense ;) I have absolutely no objections to
>> prefering scoped NO{FS,IO} interfaces of course. And that would indeed
>> eliminate a need for defining GFP_NO{FS,IO}_NOFAIL alternatives.
>
> Yes. My proposal would be:
>
> GFP_NOFAIL without any modifiers it the only valid nofail API.
Where GFP_NOFAIL is GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL (and not the more limited one
as defined in patch 4/5).
> File systems / drivers can combine іt with the scoped nofs/noio if
> needed.
Sounds good, how quickly we can convert existing __GFP_NOFAIL users remains
to be seen...
