On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Michal Hocko wrote:
Because it is really hard to figure out what it is supposed to mean.
If the caller uses __GFP_NOFAIL then it is (should be) impossible and if
NOFAIL is not used then why does it need to check for
(gfp & ~__GFP_NOFAIL) != GFP_KERNEL?
Agreed, this is pointless - and cannot recall why it was justified to have
in the first place.
But I think we should revert back to the original check then, which is there
to distinguish failure cases between normal (GFP_KERNEL) and nested (GFP_ATOMIC)
contexts. Removing the check altogether would change the fallback for regular
allocations.
So this would be:
- if (tbl == NULL && (gfp & ~__GFP_NOFAIL) != GFP_KERNEL) {
+ if (tbl == NULL && gfp != GFP_KERNEL) {
Thanks,
Davidlohr
