On Wed, May 03 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> I had a look at how the allocation 'dm_region' objects are used,
>> and it would take a bit of work to make it really safe.
>> My guess is __rh_find() should be allowed to fail, and the various
>> callers
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> >> mempool_alloc() should only be called with GFP_ATOMIC when
> >> it is not safe to wait. Passing __GFP_NOFAIL to kmalloc()
> >> says that it is safe to wait
On Fri, Apr 21 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
>
>> mempool_alloc() should only be called with GFP_ATOMIC when
>> it is not safe to wait. Passing __GFP_NOFAIL to kmalloc()
>> says that it is safe to wait indefinitely. So this code is
>> inconsistent.
>>
>>
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
> mempool_alloc() should only be called with GFP_ATOMIC when
> it is not safe to wait. Passing __GFP_NOFAIL to kmalloc()
> says that it is safe to wait indefinitely. So this code is
> inconsistent.
>
> Clearly it is OK to wait indefinitely in this code,
mempool_alloc() should only be called with GFP_ATOMIC when
it is not safe to wait. Passing __GFP_NOFAIL to kmalloc()
says that it is safe to wait indefinitely. So this code is
inconsistent.
Clearly it is OK to wait indefinitely in this code, and
mempool_alloc() is able to do that. So just use
