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

From: Dan Carpenter
Date: Thu Apr 09 2015 - 11:13:38 EST

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:53:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 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?

We still only have to revert one patch either way.

dan carpenter

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