Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent

[SeongJae Park]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:35:26 -0800 "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We should do a better job at enforcing gfp flags for vmalloc. Right now, we
> have a kernel-doc for __vmalloc_node_range(), and hope callers pass in
> supported flags. If a caller were to pass in an unsupported flag, we may
> BUG, silently clear it, or completely ignore it.
> 
> If we are more proactive about enforcing gfp flags, we can making sure
> callers know when they may be asking for unsupported behavior.
> 
> This patchset lets vmalloc control the incoming gfp flags, and cleans up
> some hard to read gfp code.

For the series,

Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>

> 
> ---
> Linked rfc [1] and rfc v2[2] for convenience.
> 
> Patch v2 -> v3:
>   Only changes the whitelist mask and comment in patch 1:

I'd suggest s/whitelist/allow-list/.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]