On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:54:35AM +0530, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 22:56 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:54:50PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:54:16AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:33:38PM +0530, Senthil Balasubramanian wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:19:00AM +0530, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > > > Stanse discovered that kmalloc can be called with GFP_KERNEL while > > > > > This commit log is confusing. It Should be "Stanse discovered kmalloc > > > > > was called with GFP_KERNEL". Obviously kmalloc with GFP_KERNEL shouldn't > > > > > be used while holding a spinlock. > > > > > > holding this spinlock. It can be a mutex instead. > > > > > > > > Not half so confusing as your criticism... :-) > > > sorry! if my mail wasn't proper. I didn't meant to blame/criticize. > > > I was confused when I read the commit log and so I replied. > > > > > > > > Are you objecting to "can be" instead of "was"? > > > I am not objecting anything... > > > > Criticism is fine -- I just don't understand what you were saying or > > what you think I should have said in the commit log. > > English at work ... let me guess: Yes. I basically misread the commit log and understood like GFP_KENREL is allowed while holding a spinlock. So I replied. Sorry! for the unnecessary noise.. here... Please ignore my comment. > > For John: "can" == "it could happen that" > For Senthil: "can" == "may" > > (when really you may NOT do GFP_KERNEL allocations in atomic context) > > johannes > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
