On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 10:46 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Mingming Cao wrote:
>
> > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc9/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.23-rc9.orig/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2007-10-05
> > 12:08:08.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc9/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2007-10-05 12:08:29.000000000
> > -0700
> > @@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ static int start_this_handle(journal_t *
> >
> > alloc_transaction:
> > if (!journal->j_running_transaction) {
> > - new_transaction = jbd_kmalloc(sizeof(*new_transaction),
> > - GFP_NOFS);
> > + new_transaction = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_transaction),
> > + GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
>
>
> Why was a __GFP_NOFAIL added here? I do not see a use of jbd_rep_kmalloc?
>
> > -#define jbd_kmalloc(size, flags) \
> > - __jbd_kmalloc(__FUNCTION__, (size), (flags), journal_oom_retry)
>
> journal_oom_retry is no longer used?
> -
journal_oom_retry (which is defined as 1 currently) is still being used
in revoke.c, the cleanup patch doesn't remove the define of
journal_oom_retry.
Since journal_oom_retry is always 1 to __jbd_kmalloc,
void * __jbd_kmalloc (const char *where, size_t size, gfp_t flags, int
retry)
{
return kmalloc(size, flags | (retry ? __GFP_NOFAIL : 0));
}
So we replace jbd_kmalloc() to kmalloc() with __GFP_NOFAIL flag on in
start_this_handle(). Other two places replacing to kmalloc() is part of
the init process, so no need for __GFP_NOFAIL flag there.
Mingming
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
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/
