Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:12:36 -0400 | From | tytso@mit ... | Subject | Re: [RFC 1/1] fs/reiserfs/journal.c: Remove obsolete __GFP_NOFAIL |
| |
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:55:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Subject: scripts/checkpatch.pl: __GFP_NOFAIL isn't going away > > Revert 7e4915e78992eb ("checkpatch: add warning of future __GFP_NOFAIL use"). > > There are no plans to remove __GFP_NOFAIL. > > __GFP_NOFAIL exists to > > a) centralise the retry-allocation-for-ever operation into the core > allocator, which is the appropriate implementation site and > > b) permit us to identify code sites which aren't handling memory > exhaustion appropriately. > > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
How about also making the following change which inspired the checkpatch warning?
diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h index 0437439..d189872 100644 --- a/include/linux/gfp.h +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h @@ -58,9 +58,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct; * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt * _might_ fail. This depends upon the particular VM implementation. * - * __GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the caller - * cannot handle allocation failures. This modifier is deprecated and no new - * users should be added. + * __GFP_NOFAIL: The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely: the + * caller cannot handle allocation failures. Callers are strongly + * encouraged not to use __GFP_NOFAIL unless the alternative is worse + * than OOM killing some random process (i.e., corruption or loss of + * some innocent user's data, etc). * * __GFP_NORETRY: The VM implementation must not retry indefinitely. *
| |