Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:56:39 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, urezki@gmail.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Martin Zaharinov <micron10@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] mm: fix BUG with kvzalloc+GFP_ATOMIC
Message-ID: <20220926075639.GA908@breakpoint.cc>
References: <20220923103858.26729-1-fw@strlen.de>
 <Yy20toVrIktiMSvH@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20220923133512.GE22541@breakpoint.cc>
 <YzFZf0Onm6/UH7/I@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YzFZf0Onm6/UH7/I@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > kvzalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) was perfectly fine, is this illegal again?
> 
> kvmalloc has never really supported GFP_ATOMIC semantic.

It did, you added it:
ce91f6ee5b3b ("mm: kvmalloc does not fallback to vmalloc for incompatible gfp flags")