On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 06:50:57PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/23/2012 06:48 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >On Wed, 23 May 2012, James Bottomley wrote: > > > >>>>So, why not simply patch slab to rely on the string lifetime being the > >>>>cache lifetime (or beyond) and therefore not having it take a copy? > > > >Well thats they way it was for a long time. There must be some reason that > >someone started to add this copying business.... Pekka? > > > The question is less why we added, but rather why we're keeping. > > Of course reasoning about why it was added helps (so let's try to > determine that), but so far the only reasonably strong argument in > favor of keeping it was robustness. I'm pretty sure it was added because there are slab names constructed by snprintf on a stack buffer, so the name doesn't exist beyond the slab initialisation function call... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
