On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:37 PM Vlastimil Babka [off-list ref] wrote:

On 12/6/18 4:49 AM, Nicolas Boichat wrote:

quoted

quoted

So it would be fine even unchanged. The check would anyway need some
more love to catch the same with __GFP_DMA to be consistent and cover
all corner cases.

Yes, the test is not complete. If we really wanted this to be
accurate, we'd need to check that GFP_* exactly matches SLAB_CACHE_*.

The only problem with dropping this is test that we should restore
GFP_DMA32 warning/errors somewhere else (as Christopher pointed out
here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/22/430), especially for kmalloc
case.

I meant just dropping that patch hunk, not the whole test. Then the test
stays as it is and will keep warning anyone calling kmalloc(GFP_DMA32).
It would also warn anyone calling kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_DMA32) on
SLAB_CACHE_DMA32 cache, but since the gfp can be just dropped, and you
as the only user of this so far will do that, it's fine?

I missed your point, this would work fine indeed.

Thanks.

quoted

Maybe this can be done in kmalloc_slab.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel