Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932558AbWHLP3I (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:29:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932597AbWHLP3G (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:29:06 -0400 Received: from helium.samage.net ([83.149.67.129]:44208 "EHLO helium.samage.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932505AbWHLP2y (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:28:54 -0400 Message-ID: <33037.81.207.0.53.1155396500.squirrel@81.207.0.53> In-Reply-To: <1155395201.13508.44.camel@lappy> References: <20060812141415.30842.78695.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060812141445.30842.47336.sendpatchset@lappy> <44DDE8B6.8000900@garzik.org> <1155395201.13508.44.camel@lappy> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:28:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: rename *MEMALLOC flags (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] deadlock prevention core) From: "Indan Zupancic" To: "Peter Zijlstra" Cc: "Jeff Garzik" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Evgeniy Polyakov" , "Daniel Phillips" , "Rik van Riel" , "David Miller" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2024 Lines: 44 On Sat, August 12, 2006 17:06, Peter Zijlstra said: > On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:41 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h >> > =================================================================== >> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:06.000000000 +0200 >> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:09.000000000 +0200 >> > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct; >> > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)0x8000u)/* Return zeroed page on success */ >> > #define __GFP_NOMEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x10000u) /* Don't use emergency reserves */ >> > #define __GFP_HARDWALL ((__force gfp_t)0x20000u) /* Enforce hardwall cpuset memory allocs >> */ >> > +#define __GFP_MEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u) /* Use emergency reserves */ >> >> This symbol name has nothing to do with its purpose. The entire area of >> code you are modifying could be described as having something to do with >> 'memalloc'. >> >> GFP_EMERGENCY or GFP_USE_RESERVES or somesuch would be a far better >> symbol name. >> >> I recognize that is matches with GFP_NOMEMALLOC, but that doesn't change >> the situation anyway. In fact, a cleanup patch to rename GFP_NOMEMALLOC >> would be nice. > > I'm rather bad at picking names, but here goes: > > PF_MEMALLOC -> PF_EMERGALLOC > __GFP_NOMEMALLOC -> __GFP_NOEMERGALLOC > __GFP_MEMALLOC -> __GFP_EMERGALLOC > > Is that suitable and shall I prepare patches? Or do we want more ppl to > chime in and have a few more rounds? Pardon my ignorance, but if we're doing cleanup anyway, why not use only one flag instead of two? Why is __GFP_NOMEMALLOC needed when not setting __GFP_MEMALLOC could mean the same? Or else what is the expected behaviour if both flags are set? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/