Re: [PATCH 02/30] mm: gfp_to_alloc_flags()

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <netdev@...>, <trond.myklebust@...>, Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 1:01 am

On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote:

This patch all looks "obviously correct" and a nice factorisation of
code, except the last little bit:


I don't remember seeing it before (though my memory is imperfect) and
it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the patch (except spatially).

There is a test above for PF_MEMALLOC which will result in a "goto"
somewhere else unless "in_interrupt()".
There is immediately above a test for "!wait".
So the only way this test can fire is when in_interrupt and wait.
But if that happens, then the
	might_sleep_if(wait)
at the top should have thrown a warning...  It really shouldn't happen.

So it looks like it is useless code:  there is already protection
against recursion in this case.

Did I miss something?
If I did, maybe more text in the changelog entry (or the comment)
would help.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 02/30] mm: gfp_to_alloc_flags(), Neil Brown, (Tue Aug 12, 1:01 am)
Re: [PATCH 02/30] mm: gfp_to_alloc_flags(), Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Aug 12, 3:33 am)