Are there any objections to the approach and can we have this merged to
the mm tree?
Dave has expressed the patch2 should be dropped for now. I will do that
in a next submission but I do not want to resubmit until there is a
consensus on this.
What do other than xfs/ext4 developers think about th
On Fri 16-12-16 17:27:28, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:35 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I hav
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:35 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> > > support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnin
On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> > support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
> > removing GFP_NOFS usage motivat
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
> removing GFP_NOFS usage motivated by the lockdep false positives. On top
> of that I've t
Hi,
I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
removing GFP_NOFS usage motivated by the lockdep false positives. On top
of that I've tried to convert few KM_NOFS usages to use the new flag in
the xfs