On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 05:16:45PM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 01:05:57AM +0100, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: David Heidelberg <[email protected]> > > > > Without WARN_ONCE, the logs get spammed immediately after the boot, > > on devices as OnePlus 6T (Snapdragon 845). > > > > Fixes: 7179b2256315 ("mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp flags") > > Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]> > > --- > > I'm not 100% sure this is the right solution, but having WARN_ONCE or > > rate limited warnings here helps a lot on devices as OnePlus 6 (sdm845). > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > --- > > mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > index 49e0b68768d73..2a3ee17093d6e 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > @@ -3934,8 +3934,8 @@ static gfp_t vmalloc_fix_flags(gfp_t flags) > > gfp_t invalid_mask = flags & ~GFP_VMALLOC_SUPPORTED; > > > > flags &= GFP_VMALLOC_SUPPORTED; > > - WARN(1, "Unexpected gfp: %#x (%pGg). Fixing up to gfp: %#x (%pGg). Fix > > your code!\n", > > - invalid_mask, &invalid_mask, flags, &flags); > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Unexpected gfp: %#x (%pGg). Fixing up to gfp: %#x (%pGg). > > Fix your code!\n" > > You accidentally deleted the comma here. > > Once we've found all gfp the callers currently use, we should never be > hitting this warning, so ratelimiting won't matter. Either way is fine > by me though if you still want to fix and resend this. > IMO, it is worth to use ONCE variant to suppress spamming.
-- Uladzislau Rezki
