![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I was planning on plugging it this way: .. and thereby losing the point of doing it the old way. The old way caused more warnigns, but more importantly, it caused warnings on machines that didn't actually _have_ highmem pages. Which is actually the big majority of them. That was the whole (and only) point of the debugging! If you only test the page address, you lose all the coverage! It would be better if we actually passed in the gfp_flags, and then we could test the __GFP_HIGH bit rather than the page address. But for now, the rule is that GFP_ATOMIC and __GFP_ZERO do not work together, because this sanity test currently cannot work for that case. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-28 19:41 [W:0.134 / U:0.860 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||