On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 02:19:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:18:50 +0000 Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes, this is the correct way it should be checked. The full flags cover
--- a/arch/mips/mm/dma-default.chm. It seems that the code is asking "can I do a potentially-sleeping
+++ b/arch/mips/mm/dma-default.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void *mips_dma_alloc_coherent(struct device *dev, size_t size,
gfp = massage_gfp_flags(dev, gfp);
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_CMA) && !(gfp & GFP_ATOMIC))
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_CMA) && ((gfp & GFP_ATOMIC) != GFP_ATOMIC))
page = dma_alloc_from_contiguous(dev,
count, get_order(size));
if (!page)
memory allocation"?
The way to do that under the new regime is
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_CMA) && gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp))
Mel, can you please confirm?
watermark and kswapd treatment which potentially could be altered by
the caller.