Re: [PATCH 1/1] Remove hardcoding of ___GFP_xxx bitmasks

[Igor Stoppa]

On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> [...]
>> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset,
>> I'm also fine with it.
> 
> I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes
> would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments...

Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set.


>> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will
> hit a lot of opposition...

The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are:

- should a new zone be added after DMA32?

- should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for
hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64
bits?



If you could answer these, then I'll have a better idea of what I need
to do to.

TIA, igor