On (23/07/07 12:03), Peter Zijlstra didst pronounce: > > 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.
This probably never showed up as a problem because slab is not using __GFP_ZERO. If a flag is used with slab that is not in the level mask, it goes *bang* as described in the comment. Does this patch compile though? > > 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 \ Should there be a | at the end there? > __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/ -- -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab - 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/
