Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL

From: Julia Lawall
Date: Thu Apr 09 2015 - 10:53:57 EST

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> Sorry, my last email was bad.
> Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try
> explain better.
> Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code
> it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and
> we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly
> by choice and it's wrong. In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we
> shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches.

But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL
choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at