On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:55:24 -0700 Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:32:07 -0400 ty...@mit.edu wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:26:06PM -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote: > > > > Well. Converting an existing retry-for-ever caller to GFP_NOFAIL is > > > > good. Adding new retry-for-ever code is not good. > > > > Oh, and BTW --- now that checkpatch.pl now flags an warning whenever > > GFP_NOFAIL is used > > I don't know what the basis for this NOFAIL-is-going-away theory could > have been. What's the point in taking a centrally implemented piece of > logic and splattering its implementation out to tens of different > callsites? > > Obviously I was asleep when I merged that checkpatch change. Exactly where confusion came from, thanks ! Fabian -- 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/
