On Mon 09-04-18 15:03:45, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 11:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > [...] > > [...] > > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > > > index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > > > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int generic_ide_resume(struct device *dev) > > > > > > memset(&rqpm, 0, sizeof(rqpm)); > > > rq = blk_get_request_flags(drive->queue, REQ_OP_DRV_IN, > > > - BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT); > > > + BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT, __GFP_RECLAIM); > > > > Is there any reason to use __GFP_RECLAIM directly. I guess you wanted to > > have GFP_NOIO semantic, right? So why not be explicit about that. Same > > for other instances of this flag in the patch > > Hello Michal, > > Thanks for the review. The use of __GFP_RECLAIM in this code (which was > called __GFP_WAIT in the past) predates the git history.
Yeah, __GFP_WAIT -> __GFP_RECLAIM was a pseudo automated change IIRC. Anyway GFP_NOIO should be pretty much equivalent and self explanatory. __GFP_RECLAIM is more of an internal thing than something be for used as a plain gfp mask. Sure, there is no real need to change that but if you want to make the code more neat and self explanatory I would go with GFP_NOIO. Just my 2c -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs