On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 10:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:32:07 -0400 ty...@mit.edu wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:26:06PM -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> > > > Well. Converting an existing retry-for-ever caller to GFP_NOFAIL is
> > > > good. Adding new retry-for-ever code is not good.
> >
> > Oh, and BTW --- now that checkpatch.pl now flags an warning whenever
> > GFP_NOFAIL is used
>
> I don't know what the basis for this NOFAIL-is-going-away theory could
> have been. What's the point in taking a centrally implemented piece of
> logic and splattering its implementation out to tens of different
> callsites?
[]
> diff -puN
> scripts/checkpatch.pl~scripts-checkpatchpl-__gfp_nofail-isnt-going-away
> scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -4240,12 +4240,6 @@ sub process {
> "$1 uses number as first arg, sizeof is generally
> wrong\n" . $herecurr);
> }
>
> -# check for GFP_NOWAIT use
> - if ($line =~ /\b__GFP_NOFAIL\b/) {
> - WARN("__GFP_NOFAIL",
> - "Use of __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated, no new users
> should be added\n" . $herecurr);
> - }
How about just changing this message to something like:
WARN("__GFP_NOFAIL",
"Use of __GFP_NOFAIL may cause the OOM handler to
kill a random process\n" . $herecurr);
--
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/
