On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <email@example.com> wrote:
> > described this way it sounds like NOFAIL imply a deadlock condition.
> NOFAIL is what 2.4 has always done, and has the deadlock opportunities
> which you mention. The other modes allow the caller to say "don't try
__GFP_NOFAIL is also very badly named: patently it can and does fail,
when PF_MEMALLOC or PF_MEMDIE or not __GFP_WAIT. Or is the idea that
its users might as well oops when it does fail? Should its users be
changed to use the less perniciously named __GFP_REPEAT, or should
__alloc_pages be changed to deadlock more thoroughly?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:12 EST