On 24-10-18, 09:00, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:49:27 +0200, Vinod wrote:
On 22-10-18, 12:22, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Looking at the latest for-next branch, by accident I saw a number of GFP_ATOMIC references.
With my extended break I don't remember much but didn't we agree that none of those were needed? If yes I'll send a patch to fix all this.
I thought that someone had fixed up all these instances,
Looking back at the git history, "someone" was mostly you :)
Yeah that is right :)
Jia-Ju Bai initially reported this and fixed few I did rest at that time
A few of them below seem to be new codes that copied the bad past examples, some are overlooked one, and some are mailbox codes that aren't 100% sure to safe to replace (although I guess it is).
looks like few missed, so yes please do fix them up and Welcome back :-)
Am not sure why were they missed but yes lets fix them and keep an eye to not get copy-pasted back in from downstream code (which i suspect is using these and people basing these off...)