On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:34 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Otherwise you are locked into the use of GFP_ATOMIC.
> >
> > all callers pretty much are either in irq context or with spinlocks held. Good
> > luck..... it's also called primarily from the PCI DMA API which doesn't take a
> > gfp_t argument in the first place...
> >
> > so I'm not seeing the point.
>
> Hmmm... From my superficial look at things it seems that one could avoid
> GFP_ATOMIC at times.
by changing ALL drivers. And then you realize the common scenario is
that it's taken in irq context ;)
> I do not know too much about the driver though but it
> seems a bit restrictive to always do GFP_ATOMIC allocs.
the only alternative to GFP_ATOMIC is GFP_NOIO which is... barely
better. And then add that it can be used only sporadic...
feel free to first change all the drivers.. once the callers of these
functions have a gfp_t then I'm sure Anil will be happy to take one of
those as well ;-)
-
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/
[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]
