Re: [patch 1/9] GFP_ZERO fix

Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>   #define GFP_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS| \
>  -			__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_REPEAT| \
>  -			__GFP_NOFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NO_GROW|__GFP_COMP)
>  +			__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL| \
>  +			__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NO_GROW|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO)

Passing GFP_ZERO into kmem_cache_alloc() is such a bizarre thing to do,
perhaps a BUG is the correct response.

I guess it could be argued that the kmem_cache_alloc() callers "knows" that
the ctor will be zeroing out all the objects, but it would seem cleaner to
me to pass the "you should use GFP_ZERO" hint into kmem_cache_create()
rather than kmem_cache_alloc().

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 1/9] GFP_ZERO fix
    • From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 0/9] various (mainly mempool fixes and block layer improvements)
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [patch 1/9] GFP_ZERO fix
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Maintainers list update: linux-net -> netdev
• Previous by thread: [patch 1/9] GFP_ZERO fix
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/9] GFP_ZERO fix
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]