Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:01 PM kbuild test robot wrote: > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) > > >> mm/failslab.c:27:26: sparse: sparse: restricted gfp_t degrades to integer > 26 if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim && > > 27 (gfpflags &

Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

Hi Nicolas, Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] [also build test WARNING on v5.2-rc1 next-20190520] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url:

Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:29 AM Akinobu Mita wrote: > > 2019年5月20日(月) 13:49 Nicolas Boichat : > > > > When failslab was originally written, the intention of the > > "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail > > GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH), > > and the

Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

On Tue, 21 May 2019, Akinobu Mita wrote: > > When failslab was originally written, the intention of the > > "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail > > GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH), > > and the code would test for __GFP_WAIT (0x10u). > > > > However,

Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

2019年5月20日(月) 13:49 Nicolas Boichat : > > When failslab was originally written, the intention of the > "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail > GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH), > and the code would test for __GFP_WAIT (0x10u). > > However, since then,

[PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with direct reclaim only

When failslab was originally written, the intention of the "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH), and the code would test for __GFP_WAIT (0x10u). However, since then, __GFP_WAIT was replaced by __GFP_RECLAIM