On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
> removing GFP_NOFS usage motivated by the lockdep false positives. On top
> of that I've
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:35 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> > > support to suppress reclaim lockdep
Are there any objections to the approach and can we have this merged to
the mm tree?
Dave has expressed the patch2 should be dropped for now. I will do that
in a next submission but I do not want to resubmit until there is a
consensus on this.
What do other than xfs/ext4 developers think about
On Fri 16-12-16 17:27:28, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:35 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I
On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> > support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
> > removing GFP_NOFS usage
Hi,
I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
removing GFP_NOFS usage motivated by the lockdep false positives. On top
of that I've tried to convert few KM_NOFS usages to use the new flag in
the
