On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be >> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK, >> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK. >> >> This simple patch makes it unconditional. > > __GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined? > > If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute > it where necessary. >
The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be ignored by the page allocator ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
