Re: can a kmalloc be both GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL at the same time?

[Stefan Richter]

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 4/30/07, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to
>> be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable
>> contexts.
>>
>> aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as ->slave_alloc methods
>> appear to be able to sleep (although some drivers use GFP_ATOMIC here and
>> some GFP_KERNEL).
> 
> Yes, none of the above appear to be atomic contexts. GFP_KERNEL in
> that case would've been a bug. If they were atomic contexts, someone
> somewhere would've been seeing a lot of "BUG: sleeping function called
> from invalid context" messages and would've probably brought it to
> lkml's notice already ;-) So the GFP_ATOMIC seems to be redundant
> thing here in both cases.

Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.txt agrees that ->slave_alloc is
allowed to sleep.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ----=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/