From 0f352e5392c86d054998dd6526f2fdc33ec4bed5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:19:32 -0700 Subject: 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 Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++------------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) (limited to 'mm') diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index 30134a8f7cc8..30f01c6f6b88 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; -- cgit v1.2.3-55-g7522