On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:16:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Some questions: Is the name OK? Is the NULL test needed? If not, should
> the call to kzalloc_node with the call to cfs_cpt_spread_node just be
> inlined into the call sites?
>
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h
> index 2991d2e..3d380f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h
> @@ -655,6 +655,15 @@ do { \
> #define OBD_CPT_ALLOC_PTR(ptr, cptab, cpt) \
> OBD_CPT_ALLOC(ptr, cptab, cpt, sizeof(*(ptr)))
>
> +static inline void *obd_cpt_alloc(struct cfs_cpt_table *cptab, int cpt,
> + size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> +{
> + return (cptab) == NULL ?
These parens aren't needed any more.
I feel like people shouldn't deliberately call this with dptab == NULL.
I looked at it a bit and wasn't sure, (was sleepy though), so it's maybe
safest to keep the test.
I wish that cfs_cpt_spread_node() accepted NULL pointers so that we
didn't have to have the check for "cptab == NULL". But your patch seems
like the way forward for now.
> + kzalloc(size, flags) :
> + kzalloc_node(size, flags, cfs_cpt_spread_node(cptab, cpt));
> +}
> +
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
