From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751550AbWFWUrL (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:47:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752045AbWFWUrL (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:47:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:32690 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751550AbWFWUrJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:47:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:46:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: swhiteho@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, teigland@redhat.com, pcaulfie@redhat.com, kanderso@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM Message-Id: <20060623134648.a7d56d1e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060623144928.GA32694@infradead.org> References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060623144928.GA32694@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:49:28 +0100 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Linus, Andrew suggested to me to send this pull request to you directly. > > Please consider merging the GFS2 filesystem and DLM from (they are both > > in the same tree for ease of testing): > > The code uses GFP_NOFAIL for slab allocator calls. All existing users of GFP_NOFAIL are lame and should be fixed to handle ENOMEM. We shouldn't add new ones. And we shouldn't open-code the retry loops to avoid attracting attention, either ;) > It's been pointed out > here numerous times that this can't work. Andrew, what about adding > a check to slab.c to bail out if someone passes it? Is there anything special about slab which makes the use of GFP_NOFAIL worse when called from the slab code?