From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBDB6B000C for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 10:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id y13-v6so9436561wrl.8 for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de. [213.95.11.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r126-v6si5372671wmd.76.2018.05.14.07.33.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 May 2018 07:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:38:02 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: fix confusion around GFP_* flags and blk_get_request Message-ID: <20180514143802.GA28197@lst.de> References: <20180509075408.16388-1-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509075408.16388-1-hch@lst.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: axboe@kernel.dk Cc: Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com, willy@infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Jens, any comments? On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:54:02AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi all, > > this series sorts out the mess around how we use gfp flags in the > block layer get_request interface. > > Changes since RFC: > - don't switch to GFP_NOIO for allocations in blk_get_request. > blk_get_request is used by the multipath code in potentially dead lock > prone areas, so this will need a separate audit and maybe a flag. ---end quoted text---