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 14:38:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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!

Forgot to address other thing spotted by Vlastimil.
---