Re: [PATCH 4/8] scsi: stop passing a gfp_mask argument down the command setup path

On 09/07/14 18:31, 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 gfp_mask arg

[PATCH 4/8] 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 ---