Mel wrote:

quoted

If you have good reason to keep __GFP_USER meanin either user or buffer,
then perhaps the name __GFP_USER is misleading.

Possibly but we are stuck for terminology here. It's hard to think of a
good term that reflects the intention.

You make several good points.  How about:
  * Rename __GFP_USER to __GFP_EASYRCLM
  * Shift the two __GFP_*RCLM flags up to 0x80000u and 0x100000u
  * Leave __GFP_BITS_SHIFT at the 21 in your patch (and fix its comment)
    (or should we go up the next nibble, to 24?).

This results in the two key GFP defines being:

#define __GFP_EASYRCLM  0x80000u /* Easily reclaimed user or buffer page */
#define __GFP_KERNRCLM 0x100000u /* Reclaimable kernel page */

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson [off-list ref] 1.925.600.0401

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>