Re: [PATCH 1/1] block/bio.c: use GFP_NOFS

[Jens Axboe]

On 2014-06-15 18:28, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Fabian Frederick wrote:
>
> > Use GFP_NOFS instead of its definition.
> >
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   block/bio.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> > index 8c2e55e..ec5d172 100644
> > --- a/block/bio.c
> > +++ b/block/bio.c
> > @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ fallback:
> >   		bvl = mempool_alloc(pool, gfp_mask);
> >   	} else {
> >   		struct biovec_slab *bvs = bvec_slabs + *idx;
> > -		gfp_t __gfp_mask = gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO);
> > +		gfp_t __gfp_mask = gfp_mask & ~GFP_NOFS;
> >
> >   		/*
> >   		 * Make this allocation restricted and don't dump info on
> > --
> > 1.8.4.5
>
> Please no.  The original was fine, this just makes it harder to read.

I agree. GFP_NOFS is useful when it's used as a whole, but for this use 
case, explicitly saying that we want to wait for mem and we allow IO is 
much clearer. The fact that this just happens to be GFP_NOFS doesn't 
really matter.

> (But I confess to hypocrisy in finding "& ~GFP_KERNEL" useful myself
> in the past somewhere.)

That's just sick, Hugh :-)

--
Jens Axboe

--
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/