Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Personally I like the consistency of adding __GFP_ZERO here (removes
> > this odd exception) and just masking it in the sl[aou]b thingies.

Adds more code. GFP_LEVEL_MASK are the flags passed through to the 
page allocator. Neither __GFP_ZERO nor __GFP_DMA are passed through and 
therefore they are not part of the GFP_LEVEL_MASK.



-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERP to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERP to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: [email protected] (Mel Gorman)
  • Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
• Next by Date: Need Help on compat_ioctl implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] add __GFP_ZERO to GFP_LEVEL_MASK
• 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]