Re: [PATCH 4/6] scsi: stop passing a gfp_mask argument down the command setup path

On 11/06/2014 08:40 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > There is no reason for ULDs to pass in a flag on how to allocate the S/G > lists. While we don't need GFP_ATOMIC for the blk-mq case because we > don't hold locks, that decision can be made way down the chain without > having to pass a pointless g

[PATCH 4/6] scsi: stop passing a gfp_mask argument down the command setup path

There is no reason for ULDs to pass in a flag on how to allocate the S/G lists. While we don't need GFP_ATOMIC for the blk-mq case because we don't hold locks, that decision can be made way down the chain without having to pass a pointless gfp_mask argument. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Revi