Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965395AbcJTPwe (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:52:34 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:41910 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964884AbcJTPwc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:52:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:52:31 -0400 From: Bruce Fields To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Layton , Linux NFS Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init Message-ID: <20161020155231.GA4347@fieldses.org> References: <1472557703-5985-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 715 Lines: 18 On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > While this would be good to get in, I don't see any particular urgency > > here. This seems like it'd be reasonable for v4.9. > > Agreed, looks ok to me. It certainly does not look like a new > regression or like a serious problem issue in practice. So 4.9 sounds > appropriate. Gah, Jeff points out I forgot to merge this. Jeff was also wondering whether we could instead just allocate this with vmalloc--is there any drawback? We only allocate this on nfsd startup, so if the only drawback is the allocation itself being expensive then that's no big deal. --b.