Re: [PATCH 0/5] mm: Switch gfp_t to unsigned long

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 06:40:59PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> I will paste the diff at the bottom. I _think_ all the problematic
> expansions are downstream of struct xarray, but it's quite likely my
> sense for problematic struct expansions is weak.

Urgh, no, it's not all xarray.  There's one in address_space which we're
trying to shrink, not grow.  There's one in struct sock too.

I don't think this idea is worth it.  There are other projects of greater
or lesser churniess which will give us some flags back.  For example,
we could finish the GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO removal.  We could finish the
radix_tree -> XArray removal and get back three bits.  That's five bits
without even starting new projects, just finishing old ones.