Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 26-06-17 14:17:30, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 02:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 26-06-17 13:45:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 06/23/2017 10:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> - GFP_KERNEL - both background and direct reclaim are allowed and the
> >>>   _default_ page allocator behavior is used. That means that !costly
> >>>   allocation requests are basically nofail (unless the requesting task
> >>>   is killed by the OOM killer)
> >>
> >> Should we explicitly point out that failure must be handled? After lots
> >> of talking about "too small to fail", people might get the wrong impression.
> > 
> > OK. What about the following.
> > "That means that !costly allocation requests are basically nofail but
> > there is no guarantee of thaat behavior so failures have to be checked
> 
>                            that
> 
> > properly by callers (e.g. OOM killer victim is allowed to fail
> > currently).
> 
> Looks good, thanks!

Andrew, could you fold the following in and replace the GFP_KERNEL part
of the changelog with the updated text. Thanks!
---