Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote:

> But that's another new user of GFP_NOFAIL (and one added three years
> after David tried to declare There Shalt Be No New Users of
> GFP_NOFAIL), and sure, we could probably patch around that by having
> places where there's no other alternaive to keep a preallocated batch
> of pages and/or allocated structures at each code site.  But that's as
> bad as looping at each code site; in fact, wouldn't it be better if
> the allocator wants to avoid looping, to have a separate batch of
> pages which (ala GFP_ATOMIC) which is reserved for just for GFP_NOFAIL
> allocations when all else fails?
> 

I didn't declare nobody should be adding __GFP_NOFAIL three years ago, 
rather three months ago I proposed a patch to fix __GFP_NOFAIL for 
GFP_ATOMIC allocations you're talking about above since, guess what, 
GPF_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOFAIL today easily returns NULL.  I tried fixing that 
failable-__GFP_NOFAIL problem with 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138662620812698 but Andrew requested a 
WARN_ON_ONCE() instead since nobody is currently doing that and we agreed 
to warn against new users.

So we should either return to my earlier patch to actually make 
__GFP_NOFAIL not fail, or improve (but not remove) the checkpatch warning 
for these failable cases.  I couldn't care less if we add 5,000 new 
__GFP_NOFAIL users tomorrow, I just care that it does what is expected if 
people are going to be adding them.
--
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/