From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261881AbVHFCAS (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:00:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261904AbVHFCAS (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:00:18 -0400 Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([66.96.29.28]:8940 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261881AbVHFCAQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:00:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:00:36 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Andrew Morton Cc: benoit.boissinot@ens-lyon.fr, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: fix invalid kmalloc flags Message-ID: <20050806020035.GA24455@kvack.org> References: <20050806002603.GA29515@ens-lyon.fr> <20050805173629.78f3a0e6.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050805173629.78f3a0e6.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:36:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > No, GFP_DMA should work OK. Except GFP_DMA doesn't have __GFP_VALID set. > It's strange that this didn't get noticed earlier. > > Ben, was there a reason for not giving GFP_DMA the treatment? Not really. Traditionally GFP_DMA was always mixed in with GFP_KERNEL or GFP_ATOMIC. It seems that GFP_DMA wasn't in the hunk of defines that all the other kernel flags were in, so if GFP_DMA is really valid all by itself, adding in the __GFP_VALID should be okay. -ben -- "Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once." -- John Wheeler