From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754961AbXJaE6r (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:58:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752551AbXJaE6h (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:58:37 -0400 Received: from smtp108.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.218]:25087 "HELO smtp108.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751487AbXJaE6g (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:58:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=O7Ugo8TTSnXWJHk64FKA92lzmSAQQKcG8ad/ILtyFyjEAC0xsusgwGbHrgOJj8RzGdJzGETyo4/FL0C3QbOtODlYZ6cove4nY4W95PogJSZXvJS2TRa+f6u2JuKmdpEvCn0mqJvlNcal60iKgFnMWFyVs5oOQ8I9K70/+j8rPvs= ; X-YMail-OSG: NpmcQEUVM1nzXs0DdnQ1TmGR20rHx22t5ZPK2ao.MWaxwZREJI8bc1Y7vgr06il_P_xoFMlfqw-- From: Nick Piggin To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/33] mm: allow PF_MEMALLOC from softirq context Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:51:56 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no References: <20071030160401.296770000@chello.nl> <20071030160911.540148000@chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <20071030160911.540148000@chello.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710311451.56747.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 31 October 2007 03:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Allow PF_MEMALLOC to be set in softirq context. When running softirqs from > a borrowed context save current->flags, ksoftirqd will have its own > task_struct. What's this for? Why would ksoftirqd pick up PF_MEMALLOC? (I guess that some networking thing must be picking it up in a subsequent patch, but I'm too lazy to look!)... Again, can you have more of a rationale in your patch headers, or ref the patch that uses it... thanks