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. > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glom...@parallels.com> > CC: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> > CC: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> > CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com> I think it was done this way to show that if CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n then the bit could be reused for something else but I can't think of any reason why that would be useful; what would need to add a gfp bit that would also happen to depend on CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n? Nothing comes to mind to save a bit. There are other cases of this as well, like __GFP_OTHER_NODE which is only useful for thp and it's defined unconditionally. So this seems fine to me. -- 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/
