On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:51:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:55:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > @@ -119,10 +134,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > > #define GFP_USER (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_HARDWALL) > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER (GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM) > > > #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE) > > > -#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS) > > > -#define GFP_TRANSHUGE (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \ > > > - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | \ > > > - __GFP_NO_KSWAPD) > > > +#define GFP_IOFS (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) > > > > These are some really odd semantics to be given a name like that. > > > > GFP_IOFS was introduced as a short-hand for testing/setting/clearing > > these two bits at the same time, not to be used for allocations. In > > fact, the only user for allocations is lustre, and it's not at all > > obious why those sites shouldn't include __GFP_WAIT as well. > > > > Removing this definition altogether would probably be best. > > Ok, I'll add a TODO to create a patch that removes GFP_IOFS entirely. It > can be tacked on to the end of the series.
Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks! Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
