From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755513AbbDIOxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:53:53 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:57466 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753397AbbDIOxw (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:53:52 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,550,1422918000"; d="scan'208";a="132392986" Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:53:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Dan Carpenter cc: Quentin Lambert , "David S. Miller" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL In-Reply-To: <20150409145035.GC16501@mwanda> Message-ID: References: <1428579988-10167-1-git-send-email-lambert.quentin@gmail.com> <1428579988-10167-3-git-send-email-lambert.quentin@gmail.com> <20150409123633.GN10964@mwanda> <55268DCB.3010201@gmail.com> <20150409145035.GC16501@mwanda> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > explain better. > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code > it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and > we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly > by choice and it's wrong. In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we > shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches. But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API? julia