On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:41 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:06.000000000 > > +0200 > > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/gfp.h 2006-08-12 12:56:09.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > > #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_MEMALLOC ((__force gfp_t)0x40000u) /* Use emergency > > reserves */ > > This symbol name has nothing to do with its purpose. The entire area of > code you are modifying could be described as having something to do with > 'memalloc'. > > GFP_EMERGENCY or GFP_USE_RESERVES or somesuch would be a far better > symbol name. > > I recognize that is matches with GFP_NOMEMALLOC, but that doesn't change > the situation anyway. In fact, a cleanup patch to rename GFP_NOMEMALLOC > would be nice.
I'm rather bad at picking names, but here goes: PF_MEMALLOC -> PF_EMERGALLOC __GFP_NOMEMALLOC -> __GFP_NOEMERGALLOC __GFP_MEMALLOC -> __GFP_EMERGALLOC Is that suitable and shall I prepare patches? Or do we want more ppl to chime in and have a few more rounds? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
