reinette chatre wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 10:14 -0700, Richard Farina wrote:
---
drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c | 5 +++--
drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-fh.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
index 0f292a2..2815ee7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
@@ -613,7 +613,8 @@ void iwlagn_rx_allocate(struct iwl_priv *priv, gfp_t priority)
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rxq->lock, flags);
- if (rxq->free_count > RX_LOW_WATERMARK)
+ if ((priority == GFP_ATOMIC) ||
+ (rxq->free_count > RX_LOW_WATERMARK / 4))
gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN;
Here I set the allocation mask to not print _any_ warnings when
allocation is atomic ...
[180257.090410] swapper: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x4020
[180257.090414] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.34-pentoo-r2 #2
[180257.090416] Call Trace:
... clearly this is an allocation warning ...
[180257.090418] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810984c0>]
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x571/0x5b9
[180257.090437] [<ffffffffa05162f3>] iwlagn_rx_allocate+0x98/0x2e0 [iwlagn]
[180257.090445] [<ffffffffa051668c>] iwlagn_rx_replenish_now+0x16/0x23
[iwlagn]
... but it is an atomic one, which after the patch should not be
printing _any_ warning ...
I dunno, I really don't. but I did just verify the patch and it is
correct and applied.
Thanks,
Rick
I am very confused now.
Reinette
--
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
