From 0f352e5392c86d054998dd6526f2fdc33ec4bed5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:19:32 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] mm: remove __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated comment
Commit 647757197cd3 ("mm: clarify __GFP_NOFAIL deprecation status") was
incomplete and didn't remove the comment about __GFP_NOFAIL being
deprecated in buffered_rmqueue.
Let's get rid of this leftover but keep the WARN_ON_ONCE for order > 1
because we should really discourage from using __GFP_NOFAIL with higher
order allocations because those are just too subtle.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++-------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 30134a8f7cc89..30f01c6f6b888 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2350,19 +2350,11 @@ struct page *buffered_rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
list_del(&page->lru);
pcp->count--;
} else {
- if (unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
- /*
- * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code.
- *
- * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they
- * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
- *
- * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
- * allocate greater than order-1 page units with
- * __GFP_NOFAIL.
- */
- WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
- }
+ /*
+ * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+ * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
page = NULL;
--
GitLab