On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 05:18:18PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:53 PM Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:54:02AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > > I disagree. If we have a better interface in place, then let's use it > > > right away, otherwise it's just useless churn. > > > > > > > The functional change and the use of cleanup macros, could be done > > independently of each other, each one fully beneficial on their own. > > > > As such I don't find it hard to claim that they are two independent > > changes. > > > > This series would be 50% bigger for no reason if we split every patch > using the new allocator into two. I'm not asking you to split every patch into two, unless that makes sense. > I absolutely don't see how this makes any sense. I find it unnecessarily hard to determine which parts of _this_ patch is functional and which is cleanup. > We're removing the calls to old interfaces and using > the new ones instead. The new ones happen to support cleanup so we use > it right away. If the old ones supported cleanup then maybeeee it > would make some sense to convert them first and then use tzmem. As it > is, there's really no point. > The old interface is kzalloc(). I haven't used the cleanup mechanism myself yet, but are you saying that there's no cleanup support for kzalloc()? Regards, Bjorn
