On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 09:46:56AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> GFP_ATOMIC is not a single gfp flag, but a macro which expands to the other
> flags and LACK of __GFP_WAIT flag. To check if caller wanted to perform an
> atomic allocation, the code must test __GFP_WAIT flag presence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprow...@samsung.com>
> ---
> .../lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> index d0d942c..dddccca1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs_private.h
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ do { \
> do { \
> LASSERT(!in_interrupt() || \
> ((size) <= LIBCFS_VMALLOC_SIZE && \
> - ((mask) & GFP_ATOMIC)) != 0); \
> + ((mask) & __GFP_WAIT) == 0)); \
> } while (0)
What a horrible assert, can't we just remove this entirely?
in_interrupt() usually should never be checked, if so, the code is doing
something wrong. And __GFP flags shouldn't be used on their own.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
