Re: [patch] xHCI: use gfp flags from caller instead of GFP_ATOMIC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:29:57AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > We're not holding a lock here so we can use the gfp flags the caller
> > specifies instead of GFP_ATOMIC.  The callers use GFP_ATOMIC so this
> > change doesn't affect how the kernel runs, but it's a cleanup.
> Nak.  We are holding a lock in all the xhci_queue* functions, so we
> need GFP_ATOMIC.  It's locked in a parent function, xhci_urb_enqueue().

Sorry, bad changlog on my part.  I saw that it was locked in the
parent, but I meant that it's not taking a lock here.  The parent
specifies GFP_ATOMIC so the parent is fine.

I don't think we should bother passing the GFP flags if we don't use

dan carpenter

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]     [Free Dating]

Add to Google Powered by Linux