Re: [PATCH] make GFP_NOTRACK flag unconditional

[Glauber Costa]

On 09/28/2012 06:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
> 

The flag is passed around extensively, but I was imagining the whole
point of that is that having the flag itself is harmless, and will be
ignored by the page allocator ?


--
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/