From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:59:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:59:20 -0400 Received: from shed.alex.org.uk ([195.224.53.219]:60596 "HELO shed.alex.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:59:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 18:59:34 +0100 From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Reply-To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel To: Mikulas Patocka , Rik van Riel Cc: Krzysztof Rusocki , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed Message-ID: <462829506.1002394773@[195.224.237.69]> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --On Saturday, 06 October, 2001 4:44 PM +0200 Mikulas Patocka wrote: > Here goes the fix. (note that I didn't try to compile it so there may be > bugs, but you see the point). (seems to replace high order allocations by vmalloc) & how does vmalloc allocate physically (as opposed to virtually) contiguous memory; can't clearly recall it being IRQ safe either (for GFP_ATOMIC). -- Alex Bligh