On 2014-06-15 18:28, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Fabian Frederick wrote:Use GFP_NOFS instead of its definition. Cc: Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <f...@skynet.be> --- block/bio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c index 8c2e55e..ec5d172 100644 --- a/block/bio.c +++ b/block/bio.c @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ fallback: bvl = mempool_alloc(pool, gfp_mask); } else { struct biovec_slab *bvs = bvec_slabs + *idx; - gfp_t __gfp_mask = gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO); + gfp_t __gfp_mask = gfp_mask & ~GFP_NOFS; /* * Make this allocation restricted and don't dump info on -- 1.8.4.5Please no. The original was fine, this just makes it harder to read.
I agree. GFP_NOFS is useful when it's used as a whole, but for this use case, explicitly saying that we want to wait for mem and we allow IO is much clearer. The fact that this just happens to be GFP_NOFS doesn't really matter.
(But I confess to hypocrisy in finding "& ~GFP_KERNEL" useful myself in the past somewhere.)
That's just sick, Hugh :-) -- Jens Axboe -- 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/
