On Mon 09-04-18 15:03:45, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 11:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > [...]
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > > index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644
> > > --- a
On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 01:26 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Why don't you fold the 'flags' argument into the 'gfp_flags', and drop
> > the 'flags' argument completely?
> > Looks a bit pointless to me, having two arguments denoti
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:26:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Why don't you fold the 'flags' argument into the 'gfp_flags', and drop
> > the 'flags' argument completely?
> > Looks a bit pointless to me, having two arguments
On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 11:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> > @@ -91
On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote:
[...]
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int generic_ide_resume(struct device *dev)
>
> mems
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:53:49AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Why don't you fold the 'flags' argument into the 'gfp_flags', and drop
> the 'flags' argument completely?
> Looks a bit pointless to me, having two arguments denoting basically
> the same ...
Wrong way around. gfp_flags doesn't re
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 04:46:22 +
"Bart Van Assche" wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 12:08 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 04:40:59PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > Do you perhaps want me to prepare a patch that makes
> > > blk_get_request() again respect the full gf
On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 12:08 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 04:40:59PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Do you perhaps want me to prepare a patch that makes blk_get_request() again
> > respect the full gfp mask passed as third argument to blk_get_request()?
>
> I think that
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 04:40:59PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM wasn't stripped off on purpose for non-atomic
> allocations. That was an oversight.
OK, good.
> Do you perhaps want me to prepare a patch that makes blk_get_request() again
> respect the full gfp mask passed
On Sat, 2018-04-07 at 23:54 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Please explain:
>
> commit 6a15674d1e90917f1723a814e2e8c949000440f7
> Author: Bart Van Assche
> Date: Thu Nov 9 10:49:54 2017 -0800
>
> block: Introduce blk_get_request_flags()
>
> A side effect of this patch is that the G
Please explain:
commit 6a15674d1e90917f1723a814e2e8c949000440f7
Author: Bart Van Assche
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:49:54 2017 -0800
block: Introduce blk_get_request_flags()
A side effect of this patch is that the GFP mask that is passed to
several allocation functions in the legacy b
11 matches
Mail list logo