From: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> 647757197cd3 ("mm: clarify __GFP_NOFAIL deprecation status") was incomplete and didn't remove the comment about __GFP_NOFAIL being deprecated in buffered_rmqueue. Let's get rid of this leftover but keep the WARN_ON_ONCE for order > 1 because we should really discourage from using __GFP_NOFAIL with higher order allocations because those are just too subtle.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> --- Hi, this popped out when discussing another patch http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] so I think it is worth removing the comment. mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++------------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index 1993894b4219..109d975a7172 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -2347,19 +2347,11 @@ struct page *buffered_rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone, list_del(&page->lru); pcp->count--; } else { - if (unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL)) { - /* - * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code. - * - * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they - * properly detect and handle allocation failures. - * - * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to - * allocate greater than order-1 page units with - * __GFP_NOFAIL. - */ - WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1); - } + /* + * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to + * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL. + */ + WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1)); spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags); page = NULL; -- 2.7.0
