Hi Dave, Christoph. > > > - ip = kmem_zone_alloc(xfs_inode_zone, 0); > > > + > > > + if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS) > > > + gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOFAIL; > > > > I'm a little worried about this change in beavior here. Can we > > just keep the unconditional __GFP_NOFAIL and if we really care do the > > change separately after the series? At that point it should probably > > use the re-added PF_FSTRANS flag as well. > Checking PF_FSTRANS was what I suggested should be done here, not > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS... No problem in splitting this change into 2 patches, 1 by unconditionally use __GFP_NOFAIL, and another changing the behavior to use NOFAIL only inside a transaction. Regarding the PF_FSTRANS flag, I opted by PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS after reading the commit which removed PF_FSTRANS initially (didn't mean to ignore your suggestion Dave, my apologies if I sounded like that), but I actually didn't find any commit re-adding PF_FSTRANS back. I searched most trees but couldn't find any commit re-adding it back, could you guys please point me out where is the commit adding it back? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- Carlos
