On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 14:11 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
Why do you think I'm a proponent of that behaviour?
I've been arguing that the existance of GFP_NOFAIL is the bug, and I
started the whole discussion because your patchset didn't outline the
purpose of its existance, it merely changes __GFP_NOFAIL usage into
$foo_nofail() functions, which on its own is a rather daft change.
Optimizing the page allocator by removing those conditional from its
innards into an outer loop not used by most callers seems a fine goal,
but you didn't state that.
Also, I like the postfix proposed by Andi better: _i_suck() :-)
--