Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-10-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes 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 on

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-10-15 Thread David Rientjes
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, David Rientjes 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. > > > >

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-10-02 Thread David Rientjes
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

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-09-28 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > 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 uncond

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-09-28 Thread Glauber Costa
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

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-09-28 Thread Christoph Lameter
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 p

Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-09-28 Thread Mel Gorman
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:56:34PM +0400, 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 KMEMCHEC

[PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

2012-09-28 Thread Glauber Costa
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 C