From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=n7Wc=J2=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,
	URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87DBC3279B
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:51:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF2A2089B
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:51:05 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8EF2A2089B
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932620AbeGJJvC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:51:02 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33108 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751194AbeGJJvB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:51:01 -0400
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de
Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254])
        by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4545AD36;
        Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:50:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:50:56 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/cma: remove unsupported gfp_mask parameter from
 cma_alloc()
Message-ID: <20180710095056.GE14284@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <CGME20180709122019eucas1p2340da484acfcc932537e6014f4fd2c29@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <20180709121956.20200-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <20180709122019eucas1p2340da484acfcc932537e6014f4fd2c29~-sqTPJKij2939229392eucas1p2j@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <CAAmzW4PPNYhUj_MeZox+ddq8MjXqnJs_AJ3xkayf710udD1pSg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAmzW4PPNYhUj_MeZox+ddq8MjXqnJs_AJ3xkayf710udD1pSg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue 10-07-18 16:19:32, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Marek.
> 
> 2018-07-09 21:19 GMT+09:00 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>:
> > cma_alloc() function doesn't really support gfp flags other than
> > __GFP_NOWARN, so convert gfp_mask parameter to boolean no_warn parameter.
> 
> Although gfp_mask isn't used in cma_alloc() except no_warn, it can be used
> in alloc_contig_range(). For example, if passed gfp mask has no __GFP_FS,
> compaction(isolation) would work differently. Do you have considered
> such a case?

Does any of cma_alloc users actually care about GFP_NO{FS,IO}?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs