Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:53:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > > explain better. > > > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Julia Lawall
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > explain better. > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code > it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Quentin Lambert
On 09/04/2015 16:50, Dan Carpenter wrote: Sorry, my last email was bad. Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try explain better. Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Dan Carpenter
Sorry, my last email was bad. Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try explain better. Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're u

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:33:47PM +0200, Quentin Lambert wrote: > > > On 09/04/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >Oh. They're not GFP_ATOMIC. > > > >Fold these two patches together into one patch and resend. > The reason I did it that way is because I feel that the two patches > really are dif

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Quentin Lambert
On 09/04/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote: Oh. They're not GFP_ATOMIC. Fold these two patches together into one patch and resend. The reason I did it that way is because I feel that the two patches really are different. The first one do not change the execution of the code but the second one

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 01:46:28PM +0200, Quentin Lambert wrote: > Both pmac_ide_init_dma and ide_dma_sgiioc4 are stored in the init_dma field of > an ide_port_info structure. This field seems to only be called from contexts > where sleep is allowed. Therefore, this patch replaces uses of GFP_ATOMI

[PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

2015-04-09 Thread Quentin Lambert
Both pmac_ide_init_dma and ide_dma_sgiioc4 are stored in the init_dma field of an ide_port_info structure. This field seems to only be called from contexts where sleep is allowed. Therefore, this patch replaces uses of GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL. Signed-off-by: Quentin Lambert --- drivers/ide/pmac