> On 09/18/2012 07:06 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >
> >> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> >> @@ -35,6 +35,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> >> #else
> >> #define ___GFP_NOTRACK 0
> >> #endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0x400000u
> >> +#else
> >> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Could you leave __GFP_MEMCG a simple definition and then define GFP_MEMCG
> > to be zer0 if !MEMCG_KMEM? I think that would be cleaner and the
> > __GFP_KMEMCHECK another case that would be good to fix up.
> >
> >
> >
> I can, but what does this buy us?
All the numeric values should be defined with __ unconditionally so that
they can be used in future context. Note the comment above the __GFP_XX
which says "Do not use this directly".
> Also, in any case, this can be done incrementally, and for the other
> flag as well, as you describe.
There is only one other flag that does not follow the scheme. I'd
appreciate it if you could submit a patch to fix up the __GFP_NOTRACK
conditional there.
There is no need to do this incrementally. Do it the right way
immediately.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
