On Sat, August 12, 2006 17:06, Peter Zijlstra said: > On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:41 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h >> > =================================================================== >> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:06.000000000 >> > +0200 >> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:09.000000000 +0200 >> > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct; >> > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)0x8000u)/* Return zeroed page >> > on success */ >> > #define __GFP_NOMEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x10000u) /* Don't use emergency >> > reserves */ >> > #define __GFP_HARDWALL ((__force gfp_t)0x20000u) /* Enforce hardwall >> > cpuset memory allocs >> */ >> > +#define __GFP_MEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u) /* Use emergency >> > reserves */ >> >> This symbol name has nothing to do with its purpose. The entire area of >> code you are modifying could be described as having something to do with >> 'memalloc'. >> >> GFP_EMERGENCY or GFP_USE_RESERVES or somesuch would be a far better >> symbol name. >> >> I recognize that is matches with GFP_NOMEMALLOC, but that doesn't change >> the situation anyway. In fact, a cleanup patch to rename GFP_NOMEMALLOC >> would be nice. > > I'm rather bad at picking names, but here goes: > > PF_MEMALLOC -> PF_EMERGALLOC > __GFP_NOMEMALLOC -> __GFP_NOEMERGALLOC > __GFP_MEMALLOC -> __GFP_EMERGALLOC > > Is that suitable and shall I prepare patches? Or do we want more ppl to > chime in and have a few more rounds?
Pardon my ignorance, but if we're doing cleanup anyway, why not use only one flag instead of two? Why is __GFP_NOMEMALLOC needed when not setting __GFP_MEMALLOC could mean the same? Or else what is the expected behaviour if both flags are set? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html