On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > The point is not to add new callers and new code should handle NULL > correctly, not that we should run around changing current users to just do > infinite retries. Checkpatch should have nothing to do with that. My problem with this doctrinaire "there should never be any new users" is that sometiems there *are* worse things than infinite retries. If the alternative is bringing the entire system down, or livelocking the entire system, or corrupting user data, __GFP_NOFAIL *is* the more appropriate option. If you try to tell those of us outside of the mm layer, "thou shalt never use __GFP_NOFAIL in new code", and we have some new code where the alternative is worse, we can either open-code the loop, or have some mm hackers and/or checkpatch whine at us. Andrew has declared that he'd prefer that we not open code the retry loop; if you want to disagree with Andrew, feel free to pursuade him otherwise. If you want to tell me that I should accept user data corruption, I'm going to ignore you (and/or checkpatch). Regards, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
