Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> There was a general sentiment in a recent discussion (See
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/18/258) that the __GFP flags should be
> defined unconditionally. Currently, the only offender is GFP_NOTRACK,
> which is conditional to KMEMCHECK.
>
> This simple patch makes it unconditional.

__GFP_NOTRACK is only used in context where CONFIG_KMEMCHECK is defined?

If that is not the case then you need to define GFP_NOTRACK and substitute
it where necessary.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/