Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 24/25] Re-sort GFP flags and fix whitespace alignment for easier reading. | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:04:03 +0300 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 23:20 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > Resort the GFP flags after __GFP_MOVABLE got redefined so how the bits > are used are a bit cleared.
I'm confused. AFAICT, this patch just fixes up some whitespace issues but doesn't actually "sort" anything?
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
The "From" tag should be the first line of the patch.
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> > --- > include/linux/gfp.h | 8 ++++---- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > index c7429b8..cfc1dd3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -47,11 +47,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > #define __GFP_NORETRY ((__force gfp_t)0x1000u)/* See above */ > #define __GFP_COMP ((__force gfp_t)0x4000u)/* Add compound page metadata */ > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)0x8000u)/* Return zeroed page on success */ > -#define __GFP_NOMEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x10000u) /* Don't use emergency reserves */ > -#define __GFP_HARDWALL ((__force gfp_t)0x20000u) /* Enforce hardwall cpuset memory allocs */ > -#define __GFP_THISNODE ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u)/* No fallback, no policies */ > +#define __GFP_NOMEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x10000u) /* Don't use emergency reserves */ > +#define __GFP_HARDWALL ((__force gfp_t)0x20000u) /* Enforce hardwall cpuset memory allocs */ > +#define __GFP_THISNODE ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u) /* No fallback, no policies */ > #define __GFP_RECLAIMABLE ((__force gfp_t)0x80000u) /* Page is reclaimable */ > -#define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)0x100000u) /* Page is movable */ > +#define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)0x100000u)/* Page is movable */ > > #define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT 21 /* Room for 21 __GFP_FOO bits */ > #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
| |