Daniel recently spotted that __GFP_ZERO is not (and has never been)
part of GFP_LEVEL_MASK. I could not find a reason for this in the
original patch: 3977971c7f09ce08ed1b8d7a67b2098eb732e4cd in the -bk
tree.
This of course is in stark contradiction with the comment accompanying
GFP_LEVEL_MASK.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/gfp.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6-2/include/linux/gfp.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/include/linux/gfp.h
+++ linux-2.6-2/include/linux/gfp.h
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
/* if you forget to add the bitmask here kernel will crash, period */
#define GFP_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS| \
__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_REPEAT| \
- __GFP_NOFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP| \
+ __GFP_NOFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO \
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC|__GFP_HARDWALL|__GFP_THISNODE| \
__GFP_MOVABLE)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
